Conference yukon::christian_v7

From: [email protected] (MICHAEL KIRKLAND)
Subject: Senate panel opens Ginsburg nomination hearing
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 93 16:48:38 PDT

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
undergoing her first day of confirmation hearings before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, largely refused to be pinned down to broad judicial
principles before the hearing was adjourned late Tuesday.
	Ginsburg affirmed her view that women now have a right to an abortion
-- but wrapped that interpretation around Supreme Court precedent in Roe
v. Wade, not from personal belief.
	Ginsburg was firm in her support of the so-called ``Lemon'' test --
that government cannot use public assets to promote the establishment of
religion.
	Though opposition to Ginsburg on the committee is minimal, she
appeared to frustrate prominent Democrats and Republicans alike, who
questioned her about the powers of the courts.
	Committee chairman Sen. Joseph Biden, D-N.J., tried to get Ginsburg
to say whether the courts should be out ahead of the nation when it
comes to deciding great social issues such as public school integration.
	But Ginsburg refused to be drawn out.
	``We live in a democracy that can be destroyed by judges'' taking on
the role of the other branches of government, Ginsburg said.
	Biden was more successful in another area.
	``Should the Supreme Court recognize a right not in the Constitution,
or not even comptemplated in the Constitution?'' Biden asked.
	``I think the framers (of the Constitution) are short-changed,''
Ginsburg replied, ``if we view them as having a limited view of rights.''
	Ranking minority member Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, tried to get
Ginsburg to comment on a current wave of job discrimination cases. Hatch
said in many of those cases, the appearance of discrimination has been 
``divorced'' from any intent on the part of any employer to use bias
when hiring an employee.
	In other words, Hatch said, employers are having to defend themselves
from discrimination cases based on nothing more than statistics.
	When Ginsburg responded by citing a California reverse discrimination
case in which one woman was the only female in a workforce of almost
300, Hatch said even that was not necessarily proof of discrimination,
and used Ginsburg herself as an example.
	``I've known you since 1980,'' Hatch said, referring to Ginsburg's
appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. ``You've
not had a black clerk of the 50 that you've hired. I know that's not
discrimination.''
	After being taken aback for a moment, Ginsburg countered by telling
Hatch, ``I have tried (to hire minorities), and I'm going to try harder.
	``If you confirm me to this job,'' Ginsburg went on, ``my attraction
to black candidates (for clerkship) is going to improve.''
	Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., tried to get Ginsburg to commit one way
or the other on the issue of appeals of death penalties that sometimes
go on for decades while convicted murderers find new grounds for appeal.
	Ginsburg slipped that question by saying she had no experience with
death penalty appeals on the D.C. Circuit.
	In response to questioning from Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio,
Ginsburg tried to explain her criticism of the foundation of Roe v.
Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that gave women access to
abortion.
	Ginsburg had said earlier that Roe should have been decided on the
basis of sex discrimination, not on personal liberty.
	Tuesday, Ginsburg told Metzenbaum that ``justice was made in Roe v.
Wade,'' indicating she would have voted with the majority no matter what
the grounds.
	In Tuesday morning's hearing session, Ginsburg indicated she would
bring a record of moderation and a cautious judicial philosophy to the
high court if she's approved.
	In opening statements, majority Democrats generally praised
Ginsburg's groundbreaking record as a lawyer and advocate for women's
rights. Republicans lauded her largely non-activist role since her
appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 13 years
ago.
	``Let me try to state in a nutshell how I view the work of judging,''
Ginsburg said at the hearing in the Hart Senate Office Buiding.
	``My approach, I believe, is neither liberal nor conservative.
Rather, it is rooted in the place of the judiciary, of judges, in our
democratic society.''
	Ginsburg, 60, argued and won a series of landmark sex discrimination
cases before the Supreme Court in the 1970s.
	She said she agrees with a statement of the late Justice Benjamin
Nathan Cardozo: ``Justice is not to be taken by storm. She is to be
wooed by slow advances.''
	The hearing marks the first time women have sat on the committee to
judge a Supreme Court nominee. Both Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and
Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun, D-Ill., expressed their strong support for
Ginsburg as the second woman nominated to serve on the court.
	President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to the
high court in 1981.
	If confirmed by the full Senate, Ginsburg would succeed retired
Justice Byron White.
	Ginsburg said she wants to be judged by her record as a jurist, not
as an advocate. That approach may insulate her somewhat from potential
opponents. Several conservative groups had promised to read all of
Ginsburg's legal writings during the last 34 years.
	This kind of paper trail of conservative views undid the nomination
of Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987.
	Opening statements by senators were largely favorable, but Republican
Hatch said he disagreed ``very much with some of Judge Ginsburg's
academic writings and some views prior to ascending the bench in 1980.''
	Hatch said he liked Ginsburg's ``understanding that her policy views
and earlier role as advocate are distinct from her role as judge.''
	Even Thurmond, one of the Senate's crustiest conservatives, said
approvingly that Ginsburg had the reputation of ``a person who thinks
twice before acting -- an especially valuable quality in a judge.''
	In contrast, one of the Senate's most adamant liberals expressed the
fear that Ginsburg would not be a social activist on the court. 
	Ohio's Metzenbaum said Ginsburg has ``the opportunity to shape the
law rather than merely apply it. I want to know whether Judge Ginsburg
will embrace this opportunity to shape the law to make the enduring
principles of our Constitution a reality for all Americans.''
	Through all of the opening statements made by the 10 Democratic and
eight Republican senators, Ginsburg sat ramrod straight and attentive,
her lips pursed in thought. She looked steadily at each speaker as he or
she made a statement, only occasionally taking a deep, controlled
breath.
	The start of the hearing was a family affair, with Ginsburg kissing
her husband, Martin. The nominee later introduced her grandchildren Paul
Spera, who'll be 7 Thursday, and Clara Spera, 2.
	``My heart is overflowing,'' she said of her family and friends, ``to
those people who made it possible for me to be here today.''

From: [email protected] (MICHAEL KIRKLAND)
Subject: Ginsburg second day of easy questioning
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 11:46:10 PDT

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her
second day of a Senate confirmation hearing, danced away Wednesday from
asserting her positions on broad legal principles.
	Time and time again, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee tried
to get Ginsburg to state her position on the limits of court power, on
how rigorous sex discrimination cases should be pursued, or whether the
current Supreme Court has lowered the barriers between church and state.
	Each time, Ginsburg said she preferred to deal with specific
questions, or that the issue concerned cases she might be required to
hear if confirmed to the court.
	``The way I'm accustomed to operating -- and as a judge that's the
only way I can operate -- is with a full record and briefs,'' Ginsburg
said. The nominee currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.
C. Circuit, one step below the Supreme Court.
	The verbal bantering produced no acrimony on either side and senators
maintained their support for her nomination.
	Ginsburg appeared much more relaxed on Wednesday than on Tuesday, the
first day of questioning by the committee.
	Tuesday night, after more than six hours of sitting, Ginsburg
laughingly told a friend the hearings were ``like an endurance test.''
	Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked Ginsburg Wednesday whether the
current high court had put more emphasis on the First Amendment clause
that prohibits the government from interfering with religion than it did
on the clause that forbids the establishment of religion.
	``The two clauses are on the same line in the amendment,'' Ginsburg
said carefully.
	Leahy then insisted on asking Ginsburg which she thought was
superior, or which the current high court thought was superior. When
Ginsburg again refused to take a position, Leahy quipped, ``Just trying,
judge, just trying.
	Earlier, Ginsburg resisted efforts by Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz.,
to find out from her how vigorously the courts should review laws based
on gender classification. 
	DeConcini said unspecified Bush and Reagan nominees to the Supreme
Court had sought to weaken the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection
clause when it comes to sex discrimination -- the same protection
principle Ginsburg established in argument before the high court as a
litagator in the 1970s.
	``It has always been my view,'' Ginsburg said, ``that distinctions on
the basis of gender should be treated most skeptically.'' She said that
approach should be applied even when laws allegedly protect women.
	But Ginsburg appeared to duck the question of whether sex
classifications in law should be subjected to the highest level of
scrutiny, as she first advocated in the early 1970s, or mid-level
scrutiny, as she came to advocate both as a litigator and a judge.
	Ginsburg repeatedly refused to be pinned down by DeConcini on whether
the courts should be reflecting or leading society in cases of social
justice -- despite inaction or adverse action by legislatures.
	Ginsburg would only cite landmark cases, such as Brown v. Board of
Education, which established integration in public schools, or her own
victories over sex discrimination before the high court.
	``From my viewpoint'' Ginsburg said, the landmark cases ``were
reflecting social changes and the ongoing changes in society.''
	Ginsburg said she could not predict whether courts, particularly the
Supreme Court, would be a leader. 
	Finally, an affable but exasperated DeConcini gave up.
	``I'm going to put words in your mouth,'' he said. ``Judge, you are a
leader.''
	Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who was criticized for his relentless
questioning of Anita Hill about her allegations of sexual harassment
against Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing in
1991, was much easier on Ginsburg. Specter said he was ``very much
impressed'' with Ginsburg.
	Specter asked her whether the proposed Equal Rights Amendment would
give women more protection under the Constitution.
	She did not address his question specifically, but said the
Fourteenth Amendment gives men and women equal protection of their
rights. She said the ERA is ``still important in a symbolic sense.
	``I would like to see it for the sake of my daughter and
granddaughter'' and everyone else's daughter, she said.
	A lighter moment came on Ginsburg's use of the term ``gender
discrimination'' rather than ``sex discrimination'' -- a usage that's
brought some derision from younger feminists.
	Ginsburg said when she was at Columbia University in the 1970s,
writing briefs and articles about ``sex discrimination,'' her secretary
came to her to complain.
	``I've been writing this word sex, sex, sex!'' her secretary said.
	The secretary told Ginsburg the world ``sex'' meant gender to her,
but it had quite a different meaning to the men who occupied most
courts.
	The secretary suggested the term ``gender discrimination,'' Ginsburg
said, which she thought would ``ward off distracting associations'' from
male judges. Ginsburg said she herself has used that term ever since.
	Ginsburg then raised her eyes to the cameras in the hearing room and
addressed that early secretary.
	``Millicent,'' Ginsburg said, ``if you're somewhere watching this, I
owe it all to you.''


    

From: [email protected] (THOMAS FERRARO)
Subject: Clinton nominates Judge Louis Freeh as FBI director
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 93 19:47:40 PDT

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- President Clinton Tuesday nominated U.S. District
Judge Louis Freeh of New York, a 43-year-old former FBI agent and
federal prosecutor, as director of the FBI.
	If confirmed by the Senate, Freeh would replace William Sessions, who
Clinton fired Monday, ending a six-month drama begun in January when
Sessions was accused of ethical misconduct.
	The president, seeking a swift change of command, interviewed Freeh
at the White House late Monday and introduced him at a Rose Garden
ceremony early Tuesday as his FBI nominee.
	``He's experienced, energetic and independent,'' Clinton said. ``He
will be both good and tough; good for the FBI and tough on criminals.''
	The president saluted Freeh as a ``law enforcement legend'' who had 
``investigated and prosecuted some of the most notorious and complex
crimes of our time.''
	Freeh said, ``If confirmed by the Senate, I pledge my total
commitment to a Federal Bureau of Investigation whose only beacon is the
rule of law.''
	He said, ``At its bedrock, the FBI must stand for absolute
integrityy, be free of all political influence, be free of any racial or
other bias, and work solely in the public interest.''
	Sessions, during his six years as FBI director, was credited with
opening the bureau to more minorities. But Monday he also became the
first director in the 70-year history of the FBI to be fired.
	Clinton had tried to pressure him to resign, but the former federal
judge from Texas defiantly refused, insisting he had done nothing wrong.
	Appearing Tuesday night on ``Larry King Live,'' Clinton said he was
sorry he had to fire Sessions.
	``It was not hard but it was sad for me,'' he told the CNN program. 
``I love the FBI and I hated to be the first president ever to fire a
director but he said that's the way he wanted it.''
	He further predicted that Freeh would ``be a sterling director.''
	``He's my kind of guy,'' the president said.
	The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility
accused Sessions last January of ethical misconduct. It said he had set
up official appointments to justify charging the government for personal
travel and improperly billed the FBI $10,000 for a fence at his home.
	Attorney General Janet Reno reviewed the allegations and recommended
that Sessions be removed. She concluded he had lost respect in the FBI
and could no longer effectively lead it.
	Clinton, in nominating Freeh as the new FBI director, picked a young
judge with an impressive credentials. As an FBI agent, he won several
awards and as a prosecutor he helped put away top crime bosses.
	The president said, ``It can truly be said that Louis Freeh is the
best possible person to head the FBI.''
	Freeh, a native of Jersey City, N.J., became an FBI agent in 1980 at
the age of 25 after working his way through New York University Law
School.
	He headed an investigation of racketeering on the New York City
waterfront, which resulted in the conviction of 125 union officials,
including Anthony Scotto, head of the International Longshoreman's
Union.
	In 1981, Freeh left the FBI and became an assistant U.S. Attorney in
New York where he later became deputy U.S. attorney and headed the
office's anti-organized crime unit.
	Freeh was the lead government prosecutor in the so-called ``Pizza
Connection'' case, a drug-running operation that used pizza parlors as a
front. The trial lasted 14 months. Freeh obtained convictions against 16
of 17 defendants.
	He became U.S. District judge for the southern district of New York
in July 1991.


    

From: [email protected] (UPI)
Subject: Clinton hails new Eastwood flick
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 93 19:40:51 PDT

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- President Clinton praised the performance of Clint
Eastwood in the new thriller, ``In the Line of Fire,'' Tuesday night,
saying it was as close to the truth as could be expected.
	Clinton said on the ``Larry King Live'' he had watched the new film
Monday night at the White House.
	``I thought Eastwood was terrific,'' he said. ``I liked the movie
very much.''
	The president said he thought the film was as realistic as it could
be, while remaining a ``rip-roaring thriller.''
	Clinton made the remarks after confiding that life in the White House
``can be very isolating,'' in part because the agents are concerned
about his safety.
	The president told Larry King on CNN Secret Service agents do a 
``very very good job,'' especially considering the fact that he makes
their job more difficult by often wandering into crowds and running
daily through the streets of Washington.


    

From: [email protected] (MICHAEL KIRKLAND)
Subject: Ginsburg: individual rights, equal protection underpin right to abortion
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 14:05:27 PDT

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her
second day of a Senate confirmation hearing, said Wednesday a woman's
right to an abortion was based both on personal liberties and on equal
protection under the law.
	Ginsburg's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee appeared
to undercut criticism that she posed a danger to the Supreme Court's
landmark case guranteeing access to abortion, Roe v. Wade.
	Ginsburg has been quoted in the past as saying Roe should have been
decided as a sex discrimination case, not on the grounds of personal
liberties used by the court majority.
	Some women's groups have interpreted that criticism of Roe as a
perhaps fatal flaw in Ginsburg's support of choice in abortion.
	But Ginsburg said Wednesday that a woman's right to an abortion isn't
``an either-or situation'' and isn't limited to the equal protection
under the law afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment. 
	``It's both equal rights and individual autonomy,'' she said.
	That brought a question from Sen. Hank Brown, R-Col., who asked if
the equal rights argument could lead to greater rights for a prospective
father -- such as notification before a woman exercises her right to
abortion.
	Ginsburg said not all relationships are perfect.
	``There are women whose physical safety, even their lives may be at
stake,'' she said, ``if they notified their partners (of an upcoming
abortion.''
	Ginsburg told Brown that her interpretation of abortion as it relates
to sex discrimination is based on a case from the early 1970s in which a
woman did not want an abortion.
	Ginsburg said a woman Air Force captain became pregnant while in
Vietnam. She wanted to have the baby, give it up for adoption after
birth, and then stay in the Air Force.
	The captain also said abortion was forbidden by religion.
	But she was told by higher ups that if she wanted to keep her job she
would have to have an abortion at the base hospital. Pregnant captains
were barred from the service by military regulation.
	Ginsburg said as the attorney in the case she argued that ``this
regulation violated the equal protection principal -- no man was ordered
out because he was about to be a father.''
	Ginsburg also said she argued that the government was ``unnecessarily
impeding'' a woman's choice to have a child or not, and also
unnecessarily interfering with her religious beliefs.
	Ginsburg said after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the
Air Force backed out and did not discharge the captain, so it never came
to be heard by the high court.
	Ginsburg appeared much more relaxed on Wednesday than on Tuesday, the
first day of questioning by the committee.
	Tuesday night, after more than six hours of sitting, Ginsburg
laughingly told a friend the hearings were ``like an endurance test.''
	Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who was criticized for his relentless
questioning of Anita Hill about her allegations of sexual harassment
against Clarence Thomas during his 1991 Supreme Court confirmation
hearings, was much easier on Ginsburg Wednesday. Specter said he was 
``very much impressed'' with Ginsburg.
	Specter asked her whether the proposed Equal Rights Amendment would
give women more protection under the Constitution.
	She did not address his question specifically, but said the
Fourteenth Amendment gives men and women equal protection of their
rights. She said the ERA is ``still important in a symbolic sense.
	``I would like to see it for the sake of my daughter and
granddaughter'' and everyone else's daughter, she said.
	A lighter moment came on Ginsburg's explanation for the use of the
term ``gender discrimination'' rather than ``sex discrimination'' -- a
usage that's brought some derision from younger feminists.
	Ginsburg said when she was at Columbia University in the 1970s,
writing briefs and articles about ``sex discrimination,'' her secretary
came to her to complain.
	``I've been writing this word sex, sex, sex!'' her secretary said.
	The secretary told Ginsburg the world ``sex'' meant gender to her,
but it had quite a different meaning to the men who occupied most
courts.
	The secretary suggested the term ``gender discrimination,'' Ginsburg
said, which she thought would ``ward off distracting associations'' from
male judges. Ginsburg said she herself has used ``gender discrimination''
ever since.
	Ginsburg then raised her eyes to the cameras in the hearing room and
addressed that early secretary.
	``Millicent,'' Ginsburg said, ``if you're somewhere watching this, I
owe it all to you.''


    

From: [email protected] (UPI)
Subject: Foley predicts flood relief will pass
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 93 12:06:49 PDT

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Despite last week's debate, House Speaker Tom
Foley, D-Wash., said Sunday there was ``no question'' Congress would
approve federal funds this week to assist flood-ravaged Midwest states.
	``No question,'' Foley said on CBS' ``Face the Nation'' program. 
``We're going to do it.''
	The House Democratic leader, however, said he was caught off guard by
last week's rebellion by House Republicans and some 45 Democrats who
held up approval of the $3 billion emergency aid package in a dispute
over how to pay for it.
	Many of the lawmakers were upset that spending cuts elsewhere were
not considered to pay for the aid. Because it is an emergency measure,
Congress may borrow to pay for the flood assistance. 
	``There is a debate about whether we should change the rules in the
middle of the game now that we have perhaps the worst flood in the
history of this country,'' Foley said, adding that it was wrong to wait
on relief until other adjustments in the federal budget were found.
	``I think we ought to consider doing that but after this particular
disaster pattern's been taken care of,'' he said. ``It is a dispute that
we're going to settle this coming week, and we're going to settle it
conclusively.''
	He also said no aid would be interrupted to those devastated by the
flooding.


    

From: [email protected] (UPI)
Subject: Caravan headed for Cuba arrives in Laredo
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 13:54:34 PDT

	LAREDO, Texas (UPI) -- A 95-truck convoy carrying about 100 tons of
humanitarian aid to Cuba began arriving Monday in Laredo on a journey to
Tampico, Mexico where the goods will embark on a freighter to Cuba.
	The caravan called U.S.-Cuba Friendshipment is being coordinated by
Pastors for Peace, a Minneapolis-based project of the Interreligious
Foundation for Community Organization, in defiance of the U.S. blockade
of Cuba. The group considers the U.S. policy immoral and illegal.
	A similar shipment, much smaller in scope however, was organized by
the same group last November.
	Elizabeth Flannery of the Pastors for Peace said the some 300
volunteers are driving the truck caravan. It was scheduled to stop along
12 separate U.S. routes to pick up collections of powdered milk,
medicine and medical supplies, school supplies, bicycles and bicycle
parts and Spanish language Bibles.
	An earlier news release from the organization said a caravan of
several dozen trucks form Mexico organized by the group ``Va Por Cuba''
was to meet the Friendshipment in Nuevo Laredo in Mexico.
	The Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization said it had
sought federal protection for the caravan because of threats broadcast
over the radio in New Jersey by ``right wing Cuban-Americans, and the
general climate of fear created by affiliated groups in Miami.''
	After all the trucks arrive at Laredo, the drivers will hold a two-
day orientation. The caravan is scheduled to cross the U.S. border into
Mexico on Thursday and travel by land to Tampico.


    

From: [email protected] (UPI)
Subject: Clinton discusses beefed-up aid package with governors
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 16:57:45 PDT

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Moving to allay the fears of Midwestern farmers,
President Clinton said Tuesday he has requested more than $4 billion in
emergency aid for flood-ravaged states and was optimistic Congress would
quickly approve it.
	In a meeting with the governors of several of the affected states, he
also assured them that further federal assistance would likely be
forthcoming in the fall as final damage estimates are reported.
	``We're still collecting damage estimates,'' Clinton said. ``It may
get worse because it's still going on in some places.''
	After the session, Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson said most of the $1.
1 increase, $700 million, would go directly to agricultural concerns,
including farmers who have been devastated by the prolonged flooding
along the Mississippi River.
	The new total proposed by Clinton will be put before the Senate, with
a vote expected as early as Friday. The House later overwhelmingly
approved Clinton's earlier request of $2.98 billion, which he told
reporters greatly pleased him.
	``I'm elated,'' he said at an evening meeting with congressmen. 
``There are still problems out there, a lot of things that could still
go wrong....Just have to see quick action from the Senate now.''
	The governors earlier said they had been assured Tuesday by Senate
Democratic leader George Mitchell of Maine and his GOP counterpart,
Robert Dole of Kansas, that the package would be approved and worked out
by conferees by next week.
	Clinton also expressed optimism it would pass.
	``I am very hopeful that we can push this through,'' he told the
governors.
	Besides Thompson, the president conferred with the governors of
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Missouri and Nebraska.
	They were in town to urge the administration and lawmakers to quickly
approve the federal assistance and to review the continuing relief
efforts as the damage estimates, now put at $10 billion, continued to
mount.
	Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar told reporters later, ``I think we all feel
the trip was worthwhile.''
	And Thompson said that although Clinton was sympathetic to requests
for waivers for the matching shares that are expected from state and
local funds, he was ``not willing to sign off on it'' yet.
	But the Wisconsin Republican said Clinton's move to further
compensate farmers, for a total of $1.5 billion, was significant. ``We
have to do everything we possibly can to allay their fears and get some
money back in their pockets,'' he said.


    

I got mail this morning from Ron.  I'm passing it along.


	Good morning,
	I just hear twice on my way in the Focus on the Family broadcast today 
        and I'm appauled but yet not surprized at what I'm hearing about what 
        is taking place in Washington D.C.

	There is a bill in the House of Representatives in Washington called
        HR-6 that has just had an amendment added to it that would require all 
        teachers to be certified in the specific subject that they are teaching.
        Where this really takes a toll is in the p

	Dick Army has proposed an amendment that would specifically state that 
        private and home schools would be exempt from this bill.  In a straight 
        party vote it was originally defeated.  All bills must go to the floor 
        but can't unless there are some rules ab
	

        This bill also deals with Health clinics and what is called OutBound 
        Education.  The Health clinics are were condoms will be able to be 
        distributed and the moral values of our children threatened by the 
        secular presentation of information about sexual behaviors.  The 
        Out Bound Education is where the government want all schools to 
        abide by a cookiecutter approach to education.  All kids are the 
        same therefore we can teach
	
        We as Christians need to contact our House Representatives today if 
        possible and definently tomorrow at their local offices and in 
        Washington.
	
        There are three things we should state:

	1.	That we are opposed to HR-6
	2.	That they as our representaztive should vote for an open rule
		on the Dick Army amendment 
	3.	That they vote in favor of the Home and Private School Amendment to 
		HR-6 (Dick Army's)

	You will have to look up in you local directories, if you don't have 
        them already the phone numbers of you Representatives.  That Washington 
        switchboard number is 1-202-224-3121.  The number at Focus on the 
        Family is 1-719-531-5181 if you would like more information.
	
        Please forgive the spelling and please pass this on to any and all 
        that you feel would be concerned about this.


Thanks,
Ron 

    re:-.1
    are a few bits of that missing, or are my eyes censoring things for me?
    :-)

There are bits missing ... as it was sent to me.

    I actually had heard bits of this one on Saturday at someone's house...
    the problems were for home schoolers mostly - and maybe some private
    Christian schools (I'm not sure about that part - I think I think that
    because of the 'p' that the sentence ends with...)
    
    don't remember about the other part...
    
    p

           <<< CRONIC::PAGE2$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]HOME_SCHOOLING.NOTE;3 >>>
                              -< Home Schooling >-
================================================================================
Note 110.1              H.R. 6 threat to home schoolers.                  1 of 1
JAKEY::ORTH "Crash all you want, we'll boot more!"  216 lines  17-FEB-1994 11:08
                   -< HSLDA (Mike Farris) analysis of HR 6. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    URGENT ALERT!

           CONGRESS WILL REQUIRE HOME SCHOOLERS TO BE CERTIFIED TEACHERS!
                            VOTE SCHEDULED FOR FEB. 23RD.
          Analysis by:
          Michael P. Farris, Esq.
          President
          Home School Legal Defense Association

          SUMMARY:
          1.  H.R. 6, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act will
          require home school parents (and all private school teachers) to
          be certified teachers.

          2.  H.R.6 will come before the House of Representatives for a
          vote on February 23.

          3. It is imperative that all home schoolers call their
          Congressman/woman immediately to urge: (1) that H.R. 6 be
          defeated; or (2) that the "Home School/Private Education Freedom
          Amendment" be adopted.

          H.S.L.D.A. is in crisis mode! Please do not call them about this
          matter,; contact your (support group leader) for more information,
          if necessary.

          DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND:

               On February 23, 1994, the United States House of
          Representatives is scheduled to vote on the reauthorization of
          the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This bill,
          H.R. 6, is also know as the "Improving America's Schools Act of
          1994."

               This bill contains the most dangerous assault on the
          freedom on home schools and private schools ever seen in recent
          history. Specifically, H.R. 6 contains a provision which may be
          interpreted to require all home school parents to be certified
          teachers, which is an effective ban on home education for more
          than 99% of all home schoolers.

               A recent, surprise amendment to H.R. 6 was added at the
          request of Congressman George Miller (D-CA). This amendment is
          section 2124(e):

               ASSURANCE. - Each State applying for funds under this title
          shall provide the secretary with the assurance that after July
          1, 1998, it will require each local educational agency within
          the State to certify that each full time teacher in schools
          under the jurisdiction of the agency is certified to teach in
          the subject area to which he or she is assigned.

               The definition of "school" must be gleaned by referring to
          the definition of "elementary school" and "secondary school."

               SEC. 9101 (11)  The term "elementary school" means a
          nonprofit day or residential school that provides
          elementary education, as determined under State law.

               SEC. 9101 (20)  The term "secondary school" means a
          nonprofit day or residential school that provides
          secondary education, as determined under State law, except that
          it does not include any education beyond grade 12.

               These definitions are identical to existing law with one
          crucial exception: the word "nonprofit" has been added to H.R. 6.

               Prior to this time, it was unclear whether or not private
          schools were included within the definitional sections of this
          law. By adding the word "nonprofit" to this definition, it is
          very clear that the intention of this law is to add all forms of
          private education to the federal definition of school.
               If this were not enough, one must consider an amendment
          that Congressman Dick Armey proposed. It read:

               Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize or
          encourage Federal control over the curriculum or practices of
          any private, religious, or home school.

               This proposed amendment was rejected by a straight party
          line vote (all Democrats voted against the amendment, all
          Republicans voted for it). I [Mike Farris] was told by committee
          staff that the reason that this amendment was rejected had
          nothing to do with home schooling, but was aimed at private
          schooling. Encouraging federal control over private education
          will both directly and indirectly harm home education.
          Furthermore, it is simply unacceptable to establish federal
          control over any branch of private education.

               If this section passes, we will argue that this section
          should be interpreted to only apply to public schools, However,
          we must consider how local and state officials will interpret
          SEC. 2124 (e). They will likely construe it as follows:

(continued in next reply...)

               Home schools are "schools" within the meaning of this
          definition because they are nonprofit day or residential schools
          which provide elementary or secondary education. Further, all
          schools which have nay statutory duty to interact with a public
          school agency (i.e. report any information whatsoever to a
          public school agency), will be deemed to be a school "under the
          jurisdiction" of a local education agency. This includes the
          vast majority of home schools in most states. Therefore, home
          schools are schools which are required to be taught by teachers
          that are "certified to teach in the subject area to which he or
          she is assigned."

               Not only must home schoolers by certified teachers, we must
          be certified in elementary education to teach elementary grades,
          and we must be certified in every subject to be allowed to teach
          secondary education. Even the vast majority of currently
          certified teachers would be banned from home schooling their own
          children at some point in their education. It is likely that no
          parent in America would be qualified to home school their own
          children in the secondary grades.

               If all of this weren't enough, this bill contains
          provisions which will encourage, if not mandate, Outcome Based
          Education in every state. Title I of H.R. 6 requires state
          standards which "specify what children served under this title
          are expected to know and be able to do." SEC. 1111
          (b)(1)(A)(i)(I). It is required that children who are subject to
          this Title are to be subject to "standards [which are] as
          challenging and of the same high-quality as they are for all
          children." SEC. 1111 (b) (1) (A). In other words, in order for
          some schools to get Title I funds, there must be a singular set
          of standards imposed on all schools.

               There is little question that this Federal encouragement of
          OBE (or some other similar form of lockstep uniform standards)
          will be attempted to be imposed on home schools. The National
          Association of State Boards of Education recently declared:

               Whether home schooling is regulated through state board
          actions or state statutes, decision makers should insure that
          policies have the following components:

               *Specific provisions for insuring the competency of the
          instructor (e.g. teacher/instructor certification or certified
          teacher visits to home school site to observe instruction,
          minimum education requirements).

               *Assurance that policies with regards to home schooling are
          aligned with the state's current outcome-based standards and
          graduation requirements.

          Policy Update, NASBE, Vol. 2, No. 2, p.1, Jan. 1994. (Only two
          selected "components" are listed).

               H.R. 6 is an expensive, dangerous bill. It will increase
          federal regulation on all schools - public, private, and home.
          It deserves to be totally defeated. The American public wants
          improvements in public education. But our nation does not want
          the increase in regimentation, federal control, with the
          resulting bureaucratic empire that is created.

               However, it is politically a long, long, shot to see this
          bill entirely defeated.
               We absolutely must attain a favorable amendment to this
          legislation protecting home schools and private schools from
          increased government - especially federal government - control.
          We have drafted a proposed amendment which reads as follows:

               (1)   Nothing in the Act shall be construed to permit,
          allow, encourage, or authorize any federal involvement with or
          control over any aspect of private schools, religious schools,
          or home schools. Such federal involvement or control is
          expressly prohibited. This prohibition shall pertain to every
          federal statute, law, or regulation which does not expressly
          reference this section and make an exception thereto.
               (2)   No federal funds allocated under this Act shall be
          used by any state agency, local educational agency, or any other
          agency of government for the purpose of monitoring, controlling,
          regulating, or supervising any private school, religious school,
          or home school except to the extent expressly required by this
          Act relative to federal funds received by students attending
          such private school, religious school, or home school.
               (3)   As used anywhere in this Act, the term "school" shall
          mean a public school and shall not include a private school,
          religious school, or home school unless specifically stated
          otherwise.

               If this Amendment is adopted we will have achieved complete
          protection from this and any future hidden assaults on home
          schools. If any attacks are to come in the future, they must be
          frontal assaults on our rights as home schoolers.
               It will be difficult to obtain passage of this amendment.
          Each end every Congressman must receive thousands and thousands
          of calls, faxes, or overnight letter - there  is no time for
          regular mail - if we are to have any chance of passing this
          amendment.

(continued in next reply...)

               STEPS OF ACTION:
               1.  Call, fax, or send an overnight letter to your
          Congressman immediately. The address is : Rep XXXX YYYY, United
          States Congress, Washington, DC 20515. The Capitol Switchboard
          number is (202) 225-3121. (If you do not know the name of your
          Congressman, call your local library, tell them where you live
          and ask for the name of your Congressman.)

               2.   Overnight letters and faxes should be 1 page or less.
               3.   You should say:
                   (a) you are a home schooler
                   (b) you oppose H.R. 6.
                   (c) you urge their support of the "Home School/Private
          School Freedom Amendment" if H.R. 6
                   is going to be passed.


               BE POLITE IN EVERY FORM OF COMMUNICATION!

               4.   Pass this information to as many home schoolers and
          private school supporters as possible, as soon
               as possible. The vote is scheduled for February 23, 1994.
          Time is of the essence.
               5. PRAY!!!

    
    
    FYI! 
    
    The Armey Admendment was passed that exempted home, private,
    and religous schools from being subject to the new rules
    in HR 6.
    
    

    Re: Linda Thompson video
    
    some {mumblefratz} Clark? guy, formerly of CBN (Pat Robertson's network), 
    was on a local show last night.  This guy was selected by Koresh to be the 
    mediator between him and the government, and was exposed to a lot of
    privileged information.  This guy states that the Linda Thompson video
    and the story presented with it is completely inaccurate.  He states
    the government is to blame for the event, but isn't as bad as they are
    being made out to be.
    
    Mike

    anyone catch President Clinton's profession of faith the last 2 nights
    on the ABC evening news with Peter Jennings?  He's says all the right
    words.  Claims to be a BAC and attends a Southern Baptist church.  His
    only problem is some of his political views.  When asked about abortion
    and alternate lifestyle rights...
    
    {paraphrased somewhat}
    
    "There are far too many abortions in this country and not enough
    adoptions.  I'm not convinced that the Bible says abortion is wrong."
    
    "'Alternate lifestyle rights' (actually used the G word) didn't make it
    into the 10 Commandments, but thou shalt not bear false witness did."

    
    Nothing is more sickening to me than to see the wicked parade as
    Christian, especially for political gain - a mostly dirty business to
    begin with.
    
    jeff

    it is interesting that he reverts to that, when one of the headlines in
    the Boston Globe (newspaper) this morning was about how he was turning
    to an evening news conference to try to bolster his popularity...
    
    seems he knows the way to bolster the confidence of the people is to be
    conservative Christian...
    (rather appear to be)

    It will be intresting to watch just who actually buys the BOC stuff. 
    Today Rush Limbaugh made a comment the Clinton would say the right
    things but the true Christians wouldn't be fooled.
    
    I've always wondered about Rush too.
    
    Sparky

>                            -< Who will be fooled >-
>
>    It will be intresting to watch just who actually buys the BOC stuff. 
>    Today Rush Limbaugh made a comment the Clinton would say the right
>    things but the true Christians wouldn't be fooled.
    
    Well this one isn't fooled.  If you subscribe to being a BAC, you
    subscribe to the Bible as being the Word of God as inspired (God-breathed),
    inerrant, complete, and the only infallible rule of faith.  He can tax
    and spend all we wants as a BAC (which I don't agree with either).  He 
    refuses to alter his political stance on at least 2 key issues that the
    Bible clearly speaks against.  In doing so he's not being accountable
    to God and His Word and I have a BIG problem with that.
    
>    I've always wondered about Rush too.
    
    Sparky, I can tell you from some sources I've read that he is a
    self-confessed Christian (I can provide them if you wish).  I think he 
    may not say so on his show because he doesn't need to mention it to do
    political analysis.  Sort of like Christian musicians such as Amy Grant
    presenting positive alternatives in the secular world.  It may not be good 
    to hide from it on his show, but he doesn't really need to bring up 
    Christianity to effectively debate politics.  And Lord knows the
    current administration is giving him a whale of a target.

    .22
    
    While Rush has a conservative view... let's be real the man's social
    life and vocabulary is questionable.
    
    He's talked about his meetings and parties with movie stars many a
    time....
    
    I dunno, but am I the only Ultra Conservative Christian in here?  I
    mean don't you see something questionable about a conservative speaker
    hanging out with liberal movie stars?
    
    It just doesn't jive... wish I could remember who they were, he
    mentioned them on a talk show where he was the guest...
    
    

    Sorry Nance, I don't listen to his show and could only comment on a
    quote of his that I read.
    
    Mike

    I've listened to his show a good bit in the past, but am currently
    unable to (DEC wants me to *work* from 12 - 3pm ;-)
    
    I can't say I have heard him speaking about going to parties with
    liberal movie stars, but I'm not sure what is wrong with being around
    them... I've been around nonCristians - *gasp* I work with them - 
    does that make me tainted?
    Does going to their parties make him guilty of their sin?
    
    I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying..
    
    I think he's still pretty conservative, and claims to be fairly moral,
    from what I've heard him say (no pornography, sex before marriage,
    etc...)
    
    what do you mean by ultra-conservative?
    

    .25
    
    Full of questions and suppositions, eh, Phil! :-)
    
    Well, I'd have a real problem with my Pastor going to a Hollywood party
    for any other reason then to preach.
    
    His confession of hollywood get togethers was more along the lines of I
    know how to party America, kind of statement... bragging in other
    words.  
    
    If someone is in the public eye takes a stand for Christianity [which
    I've never heard him do] and then brags about partying, I have a
    question about the integrity of said testimony.
    
    Ultra Conservative... Old fashioned till it hurts! :-)

�    <<< Note 209.23 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

�    I dunno, but am I the only Ultra Conservative Christian in here?  I
�    mean don't you see something questionable about a conservative speaker
�    hanging out with liberal movie stars?

"Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners"
							Matthew 11:19

Not so much who he is with, as why he is with them...  The motive.  By his 
presence, does he conform to their standards, or are they moved towards 
his?   One might well doubt the stable depths of integrity of one who 
associated with politicians...  But even they *have* souls to be saved.

								...Andrew

    Amen Andrew!
    
    

    Reminds me of one of Paul Harvey's lines:
    
    "Jesus didn't try to get the people out of the slums - He tried to get
    the slums out of the people."  
    
    Speaking of Paul Harvey - does anyone remember his on-site interview
    with Barabas?  He used to run that every year at Easter, before he
    began his present standard, the parable of the kid with the birds.  

    ...to add to these fine comments, Chris Christian once sang about being
    too heavenly minded to be any eartly good.  Evangelizing is great, but
    some folks seem to react better to seeing the Gospel through the
    actions of a changed life (i.e., proof).  I've been to some parties in
    the past.  When I refuse alcoholic drinks, it always causes people to
    ask questions.

    Why is it when I express an area of concern to discern sincerity and
    truth I get this in your face dribble about tax collectors...??? :-)
    
    Geez, yes I believe that we are to be in the world, but not of the
    world, OKAY once and for all!
    
    Now my question still remains the same, it didn't sound like a
    witnessing situation,  more like look how and who I can *party* with!  
    
    I'm sorry I'm not saying CHRISTIANS cannot sin [yes I believe to
    adopt the world is sin], therfore, Mr. Rush could very well be a
    CHRISTIAN, but I question HIS TESTIMONY!
    
    This was from his *own* lips folks, not someone out to smear him.
    
    

    From the times I've heard Rush, and from reading some of his first book
    (when I was visiting my parents), I can see nothing that would indicate
    that Rush L. is or claims to be a Christian.  He is a strong
    conservative, indeed, and stands strongly in support many *moral*
    issues.  However, morality does not a Christian make.
    
    Still, I'm glad there is someone with such a powerful "voice" in
    support of issues which affect us.
    
    Mark L.

    I have (and have read) both of his books.
    
    He makes numerous references to God, and how He (God) created the world
    and what a great job He did, etc.
    I would agree with ML - I do not recall any specific professions of
    faith by Mr. Limbaugh, but he at least recognizes the need for more God
    in this country (he wrote an interesting article about it in one of his
    newsletters)
    
    One gets the impression that it could be likely he is a C, but only God
    really knows...
    
    

    If Rush doesn't claim it, then what testimony is there to question?
    If someone else claims Christianity for him, should we then question
    a second-hand testimony?
    
    It would be better if, when we heard such things, we just adopted a
    "wait and see" attitude instead of an "I don't think so" attitude.
    
    I like Rush, if only for the irritation he is to the special interest
    liberal foaming agenda groups.  I don't get to hear or read about him
    so I really can't like more than that about him.  No one told me that
    he was a Christian; I especially never saw this publicized (like Jimmy
    Carter's profession, and others).  So I don't judge Rush on his
    Christianity.  Rush is right most of the time on the issues and it
    really bugs the snot out of the others.
    
    MM

    I recall somewhere in his first book (perhaps on the back of the cover)
    Rush described one of his characteristics as being "irreverent".  There
    are times that I have listened to him that I would have to agree.  He
    can be sort of crude at times.
    
    Mark L.

    A very interesting guest was on a local radio show yesterday: Michael
    Benn who is heading up the impeachment process for President Clinton. 
    Mr. Benn had all sorts of interesting information, including the fact
    that they have over 14M (that's right, no typo) signatures and are
    receiving 100K more *daily*!

    They are holding a press conference in NYC tomorrow and are hoping to
    gain some national exposure.  They anticipate 50-70 million signatures
    with national exposure.

    If you want more info, you can contact him at:

    Michael Benn
    PO Box 671054
    Dallas, TX  75367
    (214) 739-9000

    The scary parts of all this is the way the government has been
    threatening him.  He stated that a group of Secret Service men came to
    visit them in January for 2 hours.  They claimed someone in their
    organization threatened the President, but Mr. Benn made it known that
    they are a grassroots group (work out of their home) and have no
    members.  As they were leaving, one of them turned to his wife and
    said, "You have such a beautiful home.  It would be a shame to
    jeopardize it."  Mr. Benn found it odd, but dismissed it as something
    like an IRS audit scare tactic.

    One month later, just before dawn, an unmarked military helicopter woke
    up their whole household as it hovered over their house.  After a
    minute, it moved to the house across the street from him and fired
    something into the house, causing a major fire and 3 ft. holes in their
    roof.  Apparently, Mr. Benn and his neighbor are the only ones in the 
    neighborhood that had the same model home with a hexagon-shaped chimney 
    in the center of the house.  Benn points to his faith as a Christian and 
    stated that God was obviously protecting him.  It gets better...

    Immediately after the fire was put out, a Goodwill truck pulled up and
    confiscated the TV.  The Fire Marshal's report listed the cause a
    lightning strike.  When this happens, insurance companies *ALWAYS*
    verify this claim by checking your TV first for evidence.  Construction
    workers then came out and started pulling ceiling drywall out to
    further hide evidence.  The problem is they forgot about the aerial TV
    antennae on the roof.  

    The very next day, the copter was back and hovered over the right house
    this time for several minutes.  It was so close, it caused most of the
    shingles to blow off the roof.  Obviously another scare tactic.

    Benn, who filmed the neighbor's fire and has the video available, said
    there was a strange white substance around the entry points on the
    roof.  He sent the tape to Fire Marshals in different counties and
    states and every one stated that something entered the roof and caused
    the fire.  Even the shingles were bent in around the 3 ft. holes.  Benn
    went on radio in Dallas and told his story.  The Dallas Fire Marshal
    then changed the official cause to the hot water heater.

    Since they had another neighbor identify the helicopter (she was setting 
    her trash out for collection at the time) and were able to confirm that
    unmarked military copters just like them are stored at a Grand Prairie base 
    (that is closing) about 18 miles away.  They contacted the FAA to
    verify logs from there without luck, but a very interesting reason why. 
    These unmarked military copters are used by the ATF, DEA, and FBI for
    covert operations.  They have a transponder in them that broadcasts a
    code to any air traffic controller telling them that this is a
    government aircraft and it will *not* be logged.  Most importantly,
    they fly under *presidential* orders!

    Mr. Benn points to his precious wife's attitude, despite all this
    harassment, when she said, "Obviously we're on to something and doing
    the right thing to warrant all this attention."  Pray for these people
    folks, and put your signature on the dotted line.

    Mike

>               -< as if Whitewater & Waco weren't bad enough >-
    
    and let's not forget Randy Weaver...
    
    Remember, the "white supremicist" who bailed out of a government covert
    infiltration of a white supremicist group because he couldn't stomach
    those guys?  
    
    The Feds killed his wife and child, and Randy was supposed to have
    knocked over a lantern, too - but some outsiders showed up at just the
    right/wrong time, and the napalm got cancelled.  
    
    Col. Gritze (sp?), who had been Randy's CO in 'Nam, was called in to
    negotiate Randy's surrender - and volunteered to serve the same
    function at Waco.  Feds weren't interested, for some reason...
    
    Rush is right, you know, when he says "Character *does* matter."  

    Yesterday's Phoenix Gazette had some interesting quotes from Oliver
    Miller (Phoenix Suns player who went to Arkansas) who attended the
    victory party after Arkansas won the NCAA title on Monday night.  
    
    "Man, I didn't know the president used that kind of language.  I said,
    'Bill!'" after one particular four-letter utternace from Clinton. 
     Clinton said, "Sorry, man, but the game is really intense.'"

>    A very interesting guest was on a local radio show yesterday: Michael
>    Benn who is heading up the impeachment process for President Clinton. 
>    Mr. Benn had all sorts of interesting information, including the fact
>    that they have over 14M (that's right, no typo) signatures and are
>    receiving 100K more *daily*!

Signatures for what?

Scary stuff, Mike.  If Bill is impeached, does Hillary become President?

re.40


"...does Hillary become President?"

Er, Mark, in case you haven't noticed...

8*)

    oh - I thought we were impeaching Hillary...
    :-)

    I don't much like the idea of Gore replacing Clinton, should he be
    impeached.  

RE:           <<< Note 209.43 by CSOA1::LEECH "I'm still not a bug." >>>

   > I don't much like the idea of Gore replacing Clinton, should he be
   > impeached.  



   nit...impeachment does not mean removal from office.  He could be impeached,
 but not convicted, thus could remain in office.




Jim

I didn't know that Jim!  What good is impeachment?

And Steve, do you think Gore is worse than Clinton?

    Impeachment is the *process* of removal.  If a motion to impeach is
    brought (before the Senate, isn't it?), and passes, then the office
    holder is impeached - by definition.  What passage of the motion of
    impeachment accomplishes is to move to the next vote - to convict, if I
    remember correctly.  In other words, the vote to impeach is the vote to
    vote on conviction.  (Huh?  What did I just say?  :^)
    
    As I remember, President Johnson was impeached, but the vote failed and
    he was not convicted.  

    >Signatures for what?
    
    signatures for the impeachment petition.  Slick Willy strikes me as the
    type to call out the armed forces to keep himself in office.
    
    The petition charges him with breaking the law and claiming the same
    official charge that was attached to Nixon.  If push came to shove, he
    would probably resign and be pardoned the same way Nixon did.

    
    WARNING: incomming wet blankets
    
    
    RE:  signatures to impeach Clinton
    
    	The impeachment process is not a refrendum.  A sitting President
    can be removed from office after being tried in the House for "High
    Crimes and Mistamenores" and convicetd by the Senate.  Judging for the
    fact that *both* houses of congress are controlled by the Democratic
    Party, this is not likely to happen.  
    
    	We the people had our say in the governance of our nation on November 
    4, 1992.  We get another shot at it this November, and a chance to bounce
    this loon out on his ear in '96.   The collection of signatures to
    'impeach' Clinton only serves to show how unpopular the man is.  
    
    -Rick

 .48 is correct.  Articles of impeachment are brought by the House of
 Representatives..they are then handed to the Senate which acts as jury.
 If they vote to convict, the office holder is removed from office.  To
 impeach is merely to charge one with offences.

 Several articles of impeachment were voted against Richard Nixon.  He resigned
 when it became apparant that the Senate would vote to convict.



 Andrew Johnson was impeached..articles of impeachment were brought against 
 him, but he was aquitted by the Senate.



Jim
 

    Re: last 2
    
    correct.  Michael Benn made it known that he has 3 House members that
    have offered to initiate the hearings once he has enough signatures.

 I can't recall if there is a recall process for a President.




 Jim

Thank you, Ross Perot (voters).  NOT.

    
    re: 51
    
    There is no recall process.  The only three for Clinton to be removed
    from office is defeat at the polls, impeachment proceedings, and death.
    
    I don't understand this signature drive thing.  The process of
    impeachment should be brought againts the President if and only if
    there is reasonable suspicion that he has committed a crime.  It should
    not be based on how many signatures or whatever. (Mind you I'm not
    saying that I don't think that Mr. Clinton has not committed a crime. 
    I'll leave that for the Senate to decide.)  
    
    The peoples time to speak is on election day.  Don't forget to vote.
    
    -Rick   

    The broken law listed on the petition includes him overstepping his
    authority with the alternate lifestylers in the military.  I'm not sure
    of all the details, but his declaration was unconstitutional in some
    way.

    re: .45
    
    I don't know whether he's worse or not, but we have enough problems
    with rabid environmentalists as it is...we don't need one as Commander
    and Chief.  Besides, I get this nautious feeling evey time he is on
    the teevee...not sure why, but it began during the campaign.
    
    Not that I am against reasonable policy to help out the envioronment,
    but I grow tired of the anti-industry crowd.
    
    -steve

    This is the most telling string of this entire conference.
    

>    This is the most telling string of this entire conference.

Why's that Richard?  (I have other superlatives for other conferences, myself.)

-.2 

That's "Commander in Chief."  And for the record, I don't like Bill
Clinton and his administration or most of his policies, in case there
was ever any question.

Mark Metcalfe

P.S. Is it one of the only strings you read in here?

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV wants you to "GET REAL!":

"Get real, health care reform is coming ... and as members of the
Health Insuarance Association of America you need to cooperate and not
stand in the way of change."

"There's almost nothing in this country that doesn't need someone
watching over it ... Competition only works in grocery stores."

"Anything is possible ... the world is determined that you will not
succeed, but you just beat the world."

All citations are from the "Internal Medicine News & Cardiology News",
March 1, 1994.

    re: .59
    
    It's frightening that people think like this...especially when they are
    people in power.  They have no clue as to what the Constitution really
    means.
    
    -steve

    "There is less evidence against 90% of the inmates on death row than
    there is against Bill Clinton as brought forth by the Arkansas State
    Troopers." - Judge James Johnson, former member of the Arkansas State
    Supreme Court, from the video "Clinton's Circle of Power"

     Maybe that says something about the quality of the average DEATH ROW
    CONVICTION.                                        

    I have a softcopy of the official suit filed in Jones vs. Clinton if anyone
    wants to receive it via email.  I'd post it, but it's long and
    describes some offcolor events.
    
    It is interesting to note that Ferguson's (Clinton's bodyguard) ex-wife
    has been found dead.  It was ruled yet another suicide, but unlike
    Vince Foster, the wound was in the temple instead of the back of the
    head.
    
    Mike

    Some fascinating stuff on Clinton in the latest newsletter from Chuck
    Missler.  The scariest part (if Paula Jones, Whitewater, Vince Foster,
    and Cattle Commodities weren't enough) is that intelligence profiles of 
    Clinton from our biggest European allies all state that he is emotionally 
    unstable.  Because of his dwindling popularity on the domestic front, 
    these same intelligence groups are expecting him to engage North Korea in 
    war to improve his ratings.  Sort of akin to Desert Storm making Bush a 
    domestic hero for a time.
    
    Mike

   re: .64  Clinton's emotional state..

   Hmmm... while this is certainly interesting, I'd like to know if its
   real.  How did this newsletter come across this information, and how
   accurate a source should it be considered?
   this?
   
   Thanks,
   
   - Tom

One of the President's shortcomings is indecisiveness.  (heard on the radio.)
He can't say no (and he can't say yes); things have to work themselves
out.  He's a fence sitter.  This got him elected by a slim margin by
people who were hoping that he'd make up his mind, given a bit of
special interest pressure.  Instead, he is winding up making no one
happy.

The other tidbit is that Hillary is functioning behind the scenes as
virtual Chief of Staff.  (On the balance, they said this of Nancy Reagan
to an extent.)  Chief of Staff determines who gets to see the Prez and
determine his schedule (with the Prez, of course).

MM

   re: .66   Clinton, the fence sitter...
   
   From what little I know, this seems to be true, but is this an
   indication of his emotional stability?  Or are these 2 unrelated
   thoughts that I mistakenly tried to connect?

   Wondering,
   
   - Tom
   

    Yes, he's a fence sitter, but he also enjoys being in the spotlight and
    being Mr. Popular.  
    
    As for my source, I've posted Chuck Missler's extensive credentials in
    one of the prophecy topics.  In summary, he served in U.S. Navy
    Intelligence for decades and still has contacts there.  He's also been
    on the board for several companies as well as the ex-Chairman for
    Western Digital.  In addition, he's one of Hal Lindsay's
    consultants/right-hand men.  I find his prophetic insights from a
    Biblical, financial, and military aspect fascinating.
    
    Mike

>   From what little I know, this seems to be true, but is this an
>   indication of his emotional stability?  Or are these 2 unrelated

Dunno.  They could be related, but not necessarily.  Certainly emotional
instability could *express* itself as indecisiveness, but not all indecisive
people are unstable.

Mark

    IMO - Clinton is not a "fence sitter" as in uncertain of the direction
    he wants to go.  He is a "fence sitter" in terms of which way will get
    him the most personal benefit.  If the die is cast, and public opinion is a
    particular way, he will be decisive.  I doubt that he has an unstable
    personality, because one capable of doing the things he does and living
    in the way that he does, probably has great strength of character,
    because there is no one to help him bear his burdens.  While many do
    not appreciate Clinton's character or his values(or lack thereof) I
    doubt that you will see him "break down".  I predict that will occur
    when he faces our Lord...  

� He is a "fence sitter" in terms of which way will get him the most personal
� benefit.  If the die is cast, and public opinion is a particular way, he
� will be decisive. 

Reminds me of John 12:42b-43 ...
 "...because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear 
  they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved praise from men 
  rather than praise from God."

							Andrew

re.71

	Now hold on there fella! I ain't never voted for the man, and I can't
say that I ever saw eye to eye on any issue with him either. 

	Nonetheless, he is my president, and I don't go a figuring a foreign
fella like yourself outta be sayin uncomplimentary things about him. Why after
all it's your kind, just down the road apiece at Oxford, who be a honoring him
today with that honorary degree. Pick on dem fella's if you would. 

	Ain't nobody talking about your queen, y'know. 

	You still upset over the Boston tea party incident or that Declaration
of Independence? You may get even but you'll never get us back!

8*)  8*)

    Ace, I almost was gonna punch you in the nose for talkin' to me friend
    that way! :-)

Hi Ace ....  

I was commenting on what someone says in their note, not on who they was
a-talkin about.  Don't know the guy.  [Never voted for him either ways ....]
How should I? 

As for Oxford, and the queen ... they have problems enough of their own!

Don't think I better say any more...... not many of us over here ;-}

								&

	During the '92 campaign and afterwards, the major media news
sources did not inform us about Bill Clinton's past personal and political
history.  There were only a few alternative news sources that, over time,
have supplied us with various, seemingly unrelated, information
puzzle-pieces.  These pieces sometimes came without any corroboration other
than the quoted source, although the quoted source was often in a position
to know.

	Now, the puzzle-pieces are beginning to fit together.  This has two
likely meanings.  Either many of the allegations are true, or a very
powerful someone has been setting up this presidency for failure since well
before the campaign.  Of course, both could be true.

	Bear in mind that the interests of one-world global government are
probably best served by making all national governments (especially that of
the U.S.A.) appear weak and foolish, while attempting to bolster the
credibilty of the United Nations.

	Devious strategies like this have been *openly* published by their
originators, yet continue to be employed successfully for decades.  For
example, there is ample evidence that the National Education Association,
while publicly supporting "public" (government-run) schools, is actually
*counting* on their dismal failure, in order to replace them with
"private" and "charter" (tax-funded, corporate-run) schools that will more
quickly and effectively take control of the children away from their
parents and local school boards.  All this in order to fashion them into
"good global citizens" who are unable to think without outside help.

    "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the 
    philosophy of government in the next."
    
    An important warning from Abraham Lincoln.  Also explians why this
    generation is falling apart at the seams.  A Godless school system
    produces like fruit.  What made matters worse is the ideology that took
    the place of common sense and universal moral principles.
    
    -steve

    You can also say that the U.S.A. is reaping the unrighteousness they've
    sowed by straying away from the foundations that were rooted in God.

    Yup, that too.  The philosophy change in the school room was just one
    factor of the whole, but a major one, IMO.

    It's kind of strange, one of the major reasons for the "settlers"
    leaving their home countries was to escape religious persecution, 
    and now what do we have here.... religious persecution.
    
    Where do we new settlers move to next... Well, this time I say we stand
    and fight, not up and run....! Where do we start..
    

    We don't have much choice...there's no where to run any more.

    The only place to run to is our knees, asking God to be merciful, and
    understanding, to a nation of men, and women, who's basic nature is
    by default, bad, who's natural tendencies is to listen to the enemy, for
    their hearts are not able to hear the voice of God.
    
    I know, I have been there.
    
    In process of being changed by the grace of God,
    
    Bob

    Because of increasing pressure, increasing allegations, and the new
    "Clinton's Chronicles" video, Congress has finally scheduled a hearing
    on July 29th to address the problems of the President.

    Here's a Presidents' Day article for you to ponder...
    
{from Pastor Chuck Missler's "Personal Update - The Trail of Blood", Feb. 1995}

The Bible predicts a world government as part of the "End Times Scenario."  Many
of our briefing packages deal with this issue.  In order to develop a
perspective of American's apparent prophetic destiny, we need to deal with some
of these issues directly.  Furthermore, the Bible instructs us not to be
ignorant of Satan's devices (2 Corinthians 2:11).  Pauls warns us that "we
wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of darkness of this world, and against spiritual wickedness
in high places" (Ephesians 6:12).  It is for better understanding of these
forces that we will explore some of the bizarre events of our nation's history.

Abraham Lincoln
---------------
Lincoln's birthday gives us an appropriate opportunity to examine some deep
American traditions which may also give us some unusual insights into the
"principalities and powers" of Ephesians 6:12.  Abraham Lincoln worked valiantly
to prevent the Rothschild's attempts to involve themselves in financing the
Civil War.  Interestingly, it was the Czar of Russia who provided the needed
assistance against the British and French, who were among the driving forces
behind the secession of the South and her subsequent financing.  Russia
intervened by providing naval forces for the Union blockade of the South in
European waters, and by letting both countries know that if they attempted to
join the Confederacy with military forces, they would also have to go to war
with Russia.

The Rothschild interests did succeed, through their agent Treasury Secretary
Salmon P. Chase, to force a bill (the National Banking Act) through Congress
creating a federally chartered central bank that had the power to issue U.S.
Bank Notes.  Afterward, Lincoln warned the American people:

      "The money power preys upon the nation in time of peace and conspires
       against it in times of adversity.  It is more despotic than monarchy,
       more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy.  I see in
       the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me
       to tremble for the safety of our country.  Corporations have been
       enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the
       country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices
       of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the
       republic is destroyed."

Lincoln continued to fight against the central bank, and some now believe that
it was his anticipated success in influencing Congress to limit the life of the
Bank of the U.S. to just the war years that was the motivating factor behind
his assassination.

The Lone Assassin Myth is Born
------------------------------
Modern researchers have uncovered evidence of a massive conspiracy that link the
following parties to the Bank of Rothschild: Lincoln's Secretary of War Edwin
Stanton, John Wilkes Booth, his 8 co-conspirators, and over 70 government
officials and businessmen involved in the conspiracy (Craig Roberts "Kill
Zone").  When Booth's diary was recovered by Stanton's troops, it was delivered
to Stanton.  When it was later produced during the investigation, 18 pages had
been ripped out.  These pages, containing the aforementioned names, were later
found in the attic of one of Stanton's descendants.  From Booth's trunk, a coded
message was found that linked him directly to Judah P. Benjamin, the Civil War
campaign manager in the South for the House of Rothschild.  When the war ended,
the key to the code was found in Benjamin's possession.

The assassin, portrayed as a crazed lone gunman with a few radical friends,
escaped by way of the only bridge in Washington *not* guarded by Stanton's
troops.  "Booth" was located hiding in a barn near Port Royal, Virginia, 3 days
after escaping from Washington.  He was shot by a soldier named Boston Corbett,
who fired without orders.  Whether or not the man killed was Booth is still a
matter of contention, but the fact remains that whoever it was, he had no chance
to identify himself.  It was Secretary of War Edwin Stanton who made the final
identification.  Some now believe that a dupe was used and that the *real* John
Wilkes Booth escaped with Stanton's assistance.

Mary Todd Lincoln, upon hearing of her husband's death, began screaming, "Oh,
that dreadful house!"  Earlier historians felt that this spontaneous utterance
referred to the White House.  Some now believe it may have been directed to
Thomas W. House, a gun runner, financier, and agent of the Rothschild's during
the Civil War, who was linked to the anti-Lincoln, pro-banker interests (Thomas
W. House was the faith of "Colonel" Edward Mandell House who later became the
key player in the election of Woodrow Wilson and the passage of the Federal
Reserve Act).

The Federal Reserve
-------------------
Another myth that all Americans live with is the charade known as the "Federal
Reserve."  It comes as a shock to many to discover that it is *not* an agency of
the U.S. Government.  The name "Federal Reserve Bank" was designed to deceive,
and it still does.  It is not federal, nor is it owned by the government.  It is
*privately* owned (Lewis vs. U.S., 9th Circuit court, 4/17/1982).  It pays its
own postage like any other corporation.  Its employees are not in civil service.
Its physical property is held under private deeds, and is subject to local
taxation.  Government property, as you know, is not.  It is an engine that has
created private wealth that is unimaginable, even to the most financially
sophisticated.  It has enabled an imperial elite to manipulate our economy for
its own agenda and enlisted the government itself as its enforcer.  It controls
the times, dictates business, affects our homes and practically everything in
which we are interested.  It takes powerful force to maintain an empire, and
this one is no different.  The concerns of the leadership of the "Federal
Reserve" and its secretive international benefactors appear to go well beyond
currency and interest rates.

Andrew Jackson
--------------
Andrew Jackson was the first President from west of the Appalachians.  He was
unique for the times in being elected by the voters, without the direct support
of a recognized political organization.  He vetoed the renewal of the charter
for the Bank of the U.S. on July 10, 1832.  In 1835, President Andrew Jackson
declared his disdain for the international bankers:

       "You are a den of vipers.  I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal
        God I will rout you out.  If the people only understood the rank
        injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution
        before morning" (Arthur Schlesinger, 'The Age of Jackson').

There followed an (unsuccessful) assassination attempt on President Jackson's
life.  Jackson had told his vice president, Martin Van Buren, "The bank, Mr. Van
Buren, is trying to kill me..." (ibid.)  Was this the beginning of a patter of
intrigue that would plague the White House itself over the coming decades?  Was
his (and Lincoln's) death related by an invisible thread to the international
bankers?

James Garfield
--------------
President James Abram Garfield, our 20th President, had previously been Chairman
of the House Committee on Appropriations and was an expert on fiscal matters.
(Upon his election, among other things, he appointed an unpopular collector of
customs at New York, whereupon the 2 Senators from New York - Roscoe Conkling
and Thomas Platt - resigned their seats.)  President Garfield openly declared
that whoever controls the supply of currency would control the business and
activities of all the people.  After only 4 months in office, President Garfield
was shot a a railroad station on July 2, 1881.  Another coincidence.

John F. Kennedy
---------------
President John F. Kennedy planned to exterminate the Federal Reserve System.  In
1963 he signed Executive Orders EO-11 and EO-110, returning to the government
the responsibility to print money, taking that privilege away from the Federal
Reserve System (Craig Roberts, 'Kill Zone.').  Shortly thereafter, President
John F. Kennedy was assassinated.  The professional, triangulated fire that
executed the President of the U.S. is not the most shocking issue.  The
high-level coordination that organized the widespread coverup is manifest
evidence of the incredible power of a "hidden government" behind the scenes.
(Sound preposterous?   Read "Kill Zone" by Craig Roberts for an update on the
events in Dealey Plaza.)

The Trail of Blood Continues
----------------------------
In the '70s and '80s, Congressman Larry P. McDonald spearheaded efforts to
expose the hidden holdings and intentions of the international money interests.
His efforts ended on August 31, 1983, when he was killed when Korean Airlines
007 was "accidentally" shot down in Soviet airspace.  A strange coincidence, it
would seem.  Senator John Heinz and former Senator John Tower had served on
powerful Senate Banking and Finance committees and were outspoken critics of the
Federal Reserve and the Eastern Establishment.  On April 4, 1991, Senator John
Heinz was killed in a plane crash near Philadelphia (Gary Kah, 'En Route to
Global Occupation').  On the next day, April 5, 1991, former Senator John Tower
was also killed in a plane crash.  The coincidences seem to mount.

Attempts to just *audit* the Federal Reserve continue to meet with failure.  It
is virtually impossible to muster support for any issue that has the benefit of
a media blackout (ibid).  (The bizarre but tragic reality that the American
people suffer from a managed and controlled media is a subject for another
discussion.)  For many years, numerous authors have attempted to sound the alarm
that there exists a hidden "shadow government" that actually rules America.
Most of us have dismissed these "conspiracy theory" views as extremist and
unrealistic.  However, when I had the opportunity to have lunch with Otto von
Habsburg (his father ruled Europe until the end of the Austrian-Hungarian
empire in 1918), Member of the European Parliament, he made 2 remarks that
caught my attention.  The first was: "The ignorance in America is
overwhelming."  Indeed, the contrast in general awareness of world affairs
between the average American and the average European is striking.  It was his
second observation that really provoked me: "The concentration of power in
America is frightening."  As a reasonably circumspect senior executive, having
spent 3 decades in international finance and viewing America as a broadly based
representative democracy, his remark shocked me.  It prompted me to do some more
homework.  The results of my inquiries are most disturbing.

Is the predicted One World Government distant, or is it on the immediate
threshold?  How would one tell when it is imminent?  We will address some of
these issues in future articles.

    Anyone want to see part 2 of the "Trail of Blood"?

Yes!!!!!!

Ben

    Okay here's the next installment in the series...

{from Pastor Chuck Missler's "Personal Update - The Engine of Power", Mar. 1995}

The Bible instructs us not to be ignorant of Satan's devices and it predicts
that, as the Second Coming of Christ draws near, the world will be drawn into a
One World Government, ultimately to be taken over by a Coming World Leader
(Daniel 8:25, 11:39,43; Revelation 6:5-6, 13:18).  The forces setting the stage
for this final climactic chapter may have proceeded father than most people
realize.

Few Americans know of the betrayal that was plotted on Jekyll Island, Georgia,
which was destined to defraud Americans of their wealth and opportunity, and
would eventually lead to the subjugation of our great democratic experiment to a
centralized global dictatorship.

The Betrayal
------------
In November of 1910, after having consulted with Rothschild banks in England,
France, and Germany, Senator Nelson Aldrich (his daughter married John D.
Rockefeller, Jr., and his grandson, Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, was Gerald
Ford's Vice President in 1974) boarded a private train in Hoboken, New Jersey.
His destination was Jekyll Island, Georgia, and a private hunting club owned by
J.P. Morgan (Morgan's father was a gun runner for both sides in the Civil War
and a Rothschild agent for the South).  Aboard the train were 6 other men:
Benjamin Strong, President of Morgan's Bankers Trust Company; Charles Norton,
President of Morgan's First National Bank of New York; Henry Davidson, senior
partner of J.P. Morgan; Frank Vanderlip, President of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.'s
National City Bank of New York; A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury; and Paul Warburg (He was sent by the House of Warburg in Germany, a
branch of the Rothschild banks.  Some believe that Warburg, in collusion with
Jacob Schiff, head of the New York investment firm of Kuhn, Loeb, & Co.,
engineered the panic of 1907 to set the stage for the schemes that followed).
The secret meeting, as described by one of its architects, Frank Vanderlip, went
as follows:

     "There was an occasion near the close of 1910 when I was as secretive,
     indeed as furtive, as any conspirator.  I do not feel it is any
     exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the
     occasion of the actual conceptions of what eventually became the Federal
     Reserve System.  We were told to leave our last names behind us.  We were
     told further that we should avoid dining together on the night of our
     departure.  We were instructed to come one at a time... where Senator
     Aldrich's private car would be in readiness, attached to the rear end of
     the train for the South.  Once aboard the private car, we began to
     observe the taboo that had been fixed on last names.  Discovery we knew,
     simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would be
     wasted..."  (Frank Vanderlip, "Farm Boy to Financier," Saturday Evening
     Post, February 8, 1935).

The goal was to establish a private bank that would control the national
currency.  The challenge was to slip the scheme by the representatives of the
American people.  Earlier, it had been called the Aldrich Bill and received
effective opposition.  The devious planners of the revised bill titled it, "The
Federal Reserve Act" to mask it real nature.  It would create a system controlled
by private individuals who would control the nation's issue of money.
Furthermore, the Federal Reserve Board, composed of 12 districts and 1 director
(The Federal Reserve Chairman) would control the nation's financial resources
by controlling the money supply and available credit, all by mortgaging the
government through borrowing.

Divide and Conquer
------------------
The conspirators had a problem, however.  President William Howard Taft had made
it clear he would veto such a bill if it was introduced.  They had to make sure
he would not win reelection.  They first supported ex-President Teddy Roosevelt
in the Republican primaries, but he failed to get the nomination.  Then the
bankers supported the Democratic contender, Woodrow Wilson.  In exchange for
their support, Wilson promised to sign their bill into law.  But the polls
indicated that Wilson would only draw 45% of the votes.  The bankers needed
someone who could draw a sufficient number of Republican votes away from Taft
without harming their Democratic candidate.  They arranged for Teddy Roosevelt
to run against both men by representing a newly invented third party: the "Bull
Moose" party.  Doesn't this sound familiar?  Using a Ross Perot to defeat George
Bush and get Bill Clinton elected?  Dividing the votes of the potential winner
to elect a minority candidate is a tactic used more frequently than we realize.

The plan worked.  The Federal Reserve Bill was held until December 23 (2 days
before Christmas!) before it was presented to the House and Senate.  Only those
senators and congressmen who had not gone home for the holidays - those who owed
favors to or were on the payroll of the bankers - were present to sign the
legislation.  Involved behind the scenes in the elections of Woodrow Wilson and
Franklin Roosevelt was "Colonel" Edward Mandell House, son of the Civil War
Rothschild agent Thomas W. House (remember he may have been implicated in the
assassination of Abraham Lincoln when President Lincoln threatened the banking
interests).  "Col" Edward House represented the interests of the Rothschild
banks, and was originally a member of the Institute of International Affairs,
formed in Paris at the Majestic Hotel in a secret meeting on May 30, 1919.  Its
American branch on July 29, 1921, became the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Charade Begins
------------------
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a deliberate charade to pacify the American
voters.  They'd been crying out for banking reform and had held scores of
elections, alternating one set of politicians with another, only to find
themselves with the same programs and deeper debt.  Congressman Charles A.
Lindbergh Sr. (Father of Lucky Lindy of the famed Spirit of St. Louis
trans-Atlantic flight) had complained at the time:

     "It is a common practice of congressmen to make the title of acts promise
     aright, but in the body or test of the acts to rob the people of what is
     promised in the title."  (Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., "Lindbergh on the
     Federal Reserve," Noontide Press, Costa Mesa, CA, 1923, p. 70).

He pointed out that the government officeholders understood:

     "...that by joining with the [banking] interests to exploit the people,
     their reelection is more certain than if they serve people who elect them.
     By joining the exploiters their campaign expenses are paid, the support
     of the 'machines' and the capital press is assured, and if by chance they
     should lose they are appointed to the same office that should suit them
     equally or better." (ibid, p. 74).

The same phenomenon is visible today.  The same cast of characters emerge in key
positions whether the nation votes Democrat or Republican.  Both sides appear to
have sold out.  This traditions of betrayal has continued with NAFTA and GATT,
both of which are called "agreements" to avoid having to pass the 2/3 majority
of the Senate.  However, the White House Internet files labeled them "treaties"
as soon as they were passed.  Even Woodrow Wilson felt he had made a terrible
mistake in signing the bill.  he later wrote:

     "Some of the biggest men in the U.S. in the field of commerce and
     manufacture are afraid of something.  They know that there is a power
     somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so
     complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their
     breath when they speak in condemnation of it..." (Woodrow Wilson,
     "The New Freedom," quoted in Craig Roberts "Kill Zone," p. 176).

The name "Federal Reserve Bank" was designed to deceive, and it still does.  It
is not federal, nor is it owned by the government.  It is *privately* owned.  It
pays its own postage like any other corporation.  Its employees are not civil
service.  Its physical property is held under private deeds and is subject to
local taxation (government property is not).  It is an engine that has created
private wealth that is unimaginable, even to the most financially sophisticated.
 It has enabled an imperial elite to manipulate our economy for its own agenda
and enlisted the government itself as its enforcer.  It "controls the times,
dictates business, affects our homes and practically everything in which we are
interested (Lindbergh, p. 85).

How Does it Work?
-----------------
The Federal Reserve System is nothing more than a group of private banks which
charge interest on money that never existed.  The government prints a billion
dollars' worth of interest-bearing U.S. Government bonds and takes them to the
Federal Reserve; the Federal Reserve accepts them and places $1 billion in a
checking account and the government writes checks to the total of $1 billion.
Where was that $1 billion *before* they touched the computer to make the entry?
It didn't exist.  We allow this private banking system to create money out of
absolutely nothing (all of it a loan to our government) and charge interest on it
forever.  The bank collects interest on the government's own money.  This summary
of a highly complex system is oversimplified but accurate.  A communique sent
from the Rothschild investment house in England to its associate in New York
remarked:

     "The few who understand the system...will either be so interested in its
     profits or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from
     that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally
     incapable of comprehending...will bear its burdens without complaint."
     (Archibald E. Roberts, "Bulletin - Committee to Restore the Constitution,"
      February 1989, p.5).

The Results
-----------
The principal shareholders of the Federal Reserve include: Rothschild Banks of
England and Berlin; Warburg Banks of Hamburg and Amsterdam; Lazard Brothers
Banks of Paris; Israel Moses Seiff Banks of Italy; Chase Manhattan Bank of New
York; Lehman Brothers of New York; Kuhn, Loeb of New York; and Goldman, Sachs of
New York.  This profitable charade has been going on for 81 years!  The power
transfer created by the Federal Reserve System was further extended with the
Monetary Control Act of 1980 which gave the Federal Reserve System control over
*all* depository institutions, whether or not the banks were members of the
system.  This act also, among other things, gave the Federal Reserve the power
to use the *debt of foreign nations* as collateral for the printing of Federal
Reserve notes.  This now permits saddling the American taxpayers with *foreign*
debts!

The unseen ruling class enjoy an imperial wealth - the Rothschilds have over 76
palaces around the world - and they know what they want and how to obtain it.
One of their ultimate luxuries is privacy.  Great wealth can bring great
privacy.  Fiance has always manipulated business, and it generally strangles all
enterprise that attempts to compete with it.  The private international bankers
achieve their desires through legislation.  "The Federal Reserve Act gives a
power to the Federal Reserve Banks that makes the government impotent to protect
the interests of the people" (Lindbergh, p. 88).

Informed Outcries
-----------------
On Tuesday, December 15, 1931, Louis T. McFadden, chairman of the House Banking
and Currency Committee, proclaimed:

     "The Federal Reserve Board and banks are the duly appointed agents of the
     foreign central banks of issue and they are more concerned with their
     foreign customer than they are with the people of the United States.  The
     only thing that is American about the Federal Reserve Board and banks is
     the money they use."  (Louis T. McFadden, "Collective Speeches as
     Compiled from the Congressional Record," Omni Publications, Hawthorne,
     CA, 1970, p.239).

On Friday, June 10, 1932, McFadden again pleaded his case with his fellow
colleagues:

     "Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions
     the world has ever known.  I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the
     Federal Reserve Banks...  Some people think that the Federal Reserve
     Banks are United States Government institutions.  They are *not* government
     institutions.  They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the
     people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their
     foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and
     rich and predatory money lenders.  In that dark crew of financial pirates
     there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his
     pocket; there are those who send money into the Stars to buy votes to
     control our legislation; and there are those who maintain an
     *international propaganda* for the purpose of deceiving us and wheedling
     us into grating of new concessions which will permit them to cover up
     their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime."
     (ibid, p. 298).

The 12 regional Federal Reserve banks are also members of this private cartel.
Before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, while the Federal Reserve Bill
was under discussion, attorney Alfred Crozier from Ohio observed:

     "...the imperial power of elasticity of the public currency is wielded
     exclusively by these central corporations owned by the banks.  This is a
     life and death power over all local banks and all business.  It can be
     used to create or destroy prosperity, to ward off or cause stringencies
     and panics.  By making money artificially scarce, interest rates
     throughout the country can be arbitrarily raised and the bank tax on all
     business and cost of living increased for the profit of the banks owning
     these regional central banks, and without the slightest benefit to the
     people.  These 12 corporations together cover the whole country and
     monopolize and use for *private* gain every dollar of the public currency
     and all public revenues of the United States.  Not a dollar can be put
     into circulation among the people by their government without the consent
     of (and on terms fixed by) these 12 private money trusts." (ibid, p. 309).

Thomas Jefferson said:

     "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties
     than standing armies.  Already they have raised up a money aristocracy
     that has set the government at defiance.  That issuing power should be
     taken from the banks and restored to the government to whom it properly
     belongs."

The Kennedy Plan
----------------
President John F. Kennedy planned to exterminate the Federal Reserve System and
ultimately eliminate the national debt, as had Andrew Jackson and Abraham
Lincoln before him when they did the same to the 2 Rothschild-organized central
banks.  In 1963, by presidential order of John F. Kennedy (EO 11 and EO 110),
the United States Treasury began printing over $4 billion worth of "United
States Notes" to replace Federal Reserve Notes.  When a sufficient supply of
these notes entered circulation, the Federal Reserve notes - and the System -
could be declared obsolete.  This would end the control of the international
bankers over the U.S. government and the American people.

Some of these bills can still be found.  They can be recognized by their
distinctive *red* seal on the front of the bill instead of the green seal of
Federal Reserve Notes.  Above the portrait appears the words "United States
Note."  Printed were $2 and $5 notes (Of the $5 notes, the U.S. Treasury printed
63,360,000 [$316,800,000]), series 1963, and C. Douglas Dillon's signature
appears as Secretary of Treasury.  The reverse side of these bills is identical
to the Federal Reserve Notes.

After putting this plan into effect, John F. Kennedy was professionally
assassinated in Dealey Plaza.  The subsequent coverup was so skillful that even
to this day few Americans realize the *coup d'etat* that was engineered to save
the System.  (Otto von Habsburg's remarks still echo in my ears: "The
concentration of power in America is frightening.").  Meyer Amschel Rothschild's
original plan of two centuries ago for "a new order of one world government"
appears to be succeeding.  No wonder the Great Seal of the United States, on the
back side of the one dollar bill, bears the inscription *Novus Ordo Seclorum*:
New World Order.

Bibliography
------------
Abraham, Larry, "Call it Conspiracy," Double A Publications, Seattle, WA, 1985.

Epperson, Ralph, "The Unseen Hand," Publius Press, Tucson, AZ, 1985.

Gritton, G. Edward, "The Creature of Jekyll Island," American Media, Westwood,
CA, 1994.  (Outstanding; this is a must read for every thinking American).

Mullins, Eustace, "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve," Bankers Research
Institute, Staunton, VA, 1991.

Quigley, Carroll, "Tragedy and Hope," The Macmillan Company, London, 1966.
(taken out of print by the Rockefellers).

Roberts, Craig, "Kill Zone," Consolidated Press International, 1994.

Warner, James W., "The Planned Destruction of America," Longwood Communications,
DeBary, FL.

 Does anyone have the e-mail address for the President?  If so, please post it
 :-)


 Thanks


 Jim

RE: - A FEW

Fascinating/scary stuff! 

Ben

[email protected]

 Thank you.




 Jim

	...Just being paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you...

 Pat Buchanan will be at the Courtyard in Manchester, NH tonight at 6:30
 PM.




 Jim

 I watched the debate between the Repub candidates in the NH primary
 tonight, and I came away liking Alan Keyes even more.  Quite a man
 who clearly identifies the problems facing the country and our families
 today.



 Jim

	Jim, I agree, he sounds better and better all the time. I thought when
he said that the reason the others are spending their time in negative
campaigning was due to them not having anything of substance to offer of their
own, was great. And it makes perfect sense. 



Glen

               \|/ ____ \|/
                @~/ ,. \~@
               /_( \__/ )_\-------SNARF
               ~  \__U_/  ~

 I like what he said about kids are not joining gangs and doing drugs
 and engaging in other violent behavior because they're upset about
 the graduated income tax or lack of a balanced budget.  The problem
 is this country is the breakdown of moral values and the role of the
 family.



 Jim

    Re: Last few...  That's great, you guys!  Have I died and gone to heaven?

 I am, however, still leaning towards Buchanan, though I am troubled by the
 accusations regarding Larry Pratt and most recently, a campaign official
 in Florida.  I realize that much of this is political baloney, but I'm
 troubled by it.


 Jim

    Jim,
    
    Your position is appreciated.  I don't find it surprising, since it is
    a position held by a great many pro-life conservative Christians.  Pat
    certainly has a lot of momentum going into the NH primary, and has an
    excellent chance of winning there.  I was just overjoyed that you had
    heard Alan speak, and recognized what an articulate and persuasive
    voice he brings to politics.
    
    My next post is not intended to antagonize or polarize, but only to
    inform you of an honest and important difference between the public
    positions taken (and their presentations) by Pat Buchanan and
    Alan Keyes.
    
	Bob Sampson

Alan Keyes:	How Deep and Serious Is the Moment You and I Are Facing

Speech to the New Hampshire Christian Coalition
February 16, 1996
-----------------------------------------------
Transcript by David Quackenbush and Kristin R. Kazyak

Hello!  

Good Evening!

Thank you very much!

Thank you!  Thank you very much!  Good Evening!  Thank you.

You know, what I have to do this evening is a little bit of a departure from
the usual campaign speeches.  I think a lot of people here know where I stand
and what my campaign represents.  Indeed the message of this campaign began
to resonate, first of all, in New Hampshire, when we declared unequivocally
that the issues that this country faces are not just money issues but moral
issues, that have to be *dealt* with or we shall *lose* the family, and
*lose* the decency and *lose* the freedom which are grounded on its strength.

I think more and more Americans are recognizing that truth.  But tonight I
want to speak especially to those who are gathered here under the banner of
the Christian Coalition.  I wish to speak to you not just as a politician on
a public platform, but as a Christian, and an American engaged in the
business of politics which is, indeed, the business of citizenship.

I want to speak to you about the special vocation that *we* who are *of* the
Christian faith and belief have in America's politics.  I believe that the
future of this Republic depends on how we handle ourselves, what we do, in
the course of the years ahead.  For we *are* an indispensable voice of
conscience and principle in this nation's life.

We believe in our hearts the fundamental principle on which this nation
rests, and without our witness that principle will be destroyed.  But, there
are also dangers in that vocation.  And I want to talk about those.  But
first, what is the vocation?

Well, think about the situation in the country.  I don't have to go through
it in great detail - you know what it is.  I realize that all my competitors
spend their time obsessing about these money issues.  But they remind me of
the parents in a family where the kids are going bad.  One of them's on
drugs, another's committing crimes, and another one's out there doing heaven
knows what with sexual promiscuity.  And meanwhile, they'll every now and
again get a little raise in their allowance from the parents and they'll sit
around talking to each other about how they get the next pay raise and how
they improve their careers -- as if the *only* thing that matters was the
material goods that they could get for their family.  

How many families have been broken and destroyed in this country by people
who try to fill up the spiritual void that comes from living without faith in
God, with things, with money, when we know that there are certain things that
money CANNOT buy, but that can *only* be achieved through the reverence for
Almighty God?  <applause>

And I think that that's exactly the situation of this nation.  We want to sit
around on stages and talk about the flat tax and the trade and the jobs and
this and that.  And you can *PRETEND* IF YOU LIKE that, that is the major
source of this country's problems, but in your hearts you know that that's a
lie.

We do not have schools overshadowed with fear and violence, and teenagers
murdering one another in the streets, and fourteen-year-olds raping the
ten-year-olds -- We do not *have* younger generations without guidance,
without CONSCIENCE, without scruples, because we don't have a flat tax!
 <applause>

We have those things going on because we have retreated from the moral basis
of this nation's life; because we have sacrificed that institution which is
DEPENDENT on that moral foundation *for* its survival -- the marriage-based
two-parent family.

*That, that is why our children perish!*
<applause>

And while they perish, while they perish, all we want to do is talk about the
equivalent of raising the allowance -- that's Mr. Forbes talking about the
flat tax.  The other day he was saying, they were going to ALLOW us to keep
more of our money.  You know, when we hear that we should realize that that
is a phrase that should apply only to *serfs* and *slaves*, not to a free
people.  The money we earn is OUR money, and we ought to understand that from
the beginning.  

But that attitude -- we'll sit around and see if we can raise their allowance
-- we'll see if we can get them addicted to this craving for a security that
comes from the government. But I'll tell you, there is no security -- not job
security, not life security, not heart security -- that can come from the
government.  This country was *built* on the strength of its people, on the
*character* of its people!  And if we don't stop looking to GOVERNMENT to
safeguard our livelihoods, and our lives, we will have no freedom left.
 <applause>

So in the end it's got to be, its gotta be,  that we're going to look at the
moral underpinnings of this society -- what the real cause of the family
disintegration is.  It's not money, not economics, not job loss.  The real
cause is the abandonment of those moral principles which were articulated at
this nation's beginning, and without which we cannot survive.

Now, the basic moral principle is very simple.  When they said "We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," they were not only
making a *statement* about rights.  They were making a statement that clearly
puts it forward that the fundamental premise of *life* and *justice* and
*freedom* and *dignity* in this land is the existence *and* the authority of
God Almighty!

And I put this question to you, my friends:  Who is going to bear witness to
the truth of that principle, if not those who are the people of God, called
by his name, carrying faith in God *in* their hearts, and through the example
of Jesus Christ living *out* that love in this world?  Who but us is going to
bear witness to that principle in America's public life?  

That, that is our challenge!  That, that is our vocation!  That, that is our
destiny as Christians, as *Americans*, in this land.  

But I have to tell you tonight -- and brace yourselves, because this is the
part some of you won't want to hear.  But I hope you'll listen to me anyway.
 As you've noticed, in my campaign I don't deal in telling people what they
want to hear.  I deal in telling them what I think they've gotta hear.  And
this you've gotta hear.

That, that when this nation was founded, our Founders had come out of a
period in Europe when wars of religious fanaticism had laid waste the
European landscape -- killing scores of thousands over the course of two
centuries, and leading to a deepening cynicism about religion and reverence
for God.  They saw it as their challenge to establish a nation where people
could live together in peace, following their CONSCIENCES in the worship of
God, a land where the reverence for God would NOT lead to conflict, and to
war, and to devastation.  

That, that is why we live in a land today that exists under the banner of
religious TOLERANCE and religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment
-- guaranteeing that each and every one of us shall be FREE IN OUR CONSCIENCE
from the coercive power of government!  We HAVE NO RIGHT to use that coercive
power to impose religious belief on ANYONE in this land.  That, that was one
of the PURPOSES for which this nation was founded.

And if you understand that, then you understand something else.  I follow to
this podium a man I greatly respect and admire.  But also a man who I believe
is in the midst of committing what could be a FATAL MISTAKE for the moral
conservative cause.  

We cannot appear before the American people, however much we feel it in our
hearts -- my Christian heart -- you ask me  "Why is abortion wrong?" and I'll
tell you:  because God SAYS it's wrong, and the Bible SAYS it's wrong, and
those are the strictures that we must follow, as people of Christian faith.
 But when I stand on this public platform, to answer for ALL Americans why
abortion is wrong, I'll be quite frank with you:  I *CANNOT* TELL THEM that
we can base the law on MY religious faith.  It CANNOT be done!  And if we try
to make that the basis of our presentation of our moral position, I tell you
now:  WE WILL BE DEFEATED, DISCREDITED, AND DRIVEN from American politics.

We CANNOT STAND before the American people, as I'm afraid Pat just did, and
tell them that the great foundations of American life are the Bible and the
Constitution.  He leaves something out.  He leaves out that great document
which is the bridge between the Bible and the Constitution.  That, that great
document which takes the principles of Christian truth and translates them
into a form that provides solid ground for EVERY American, regardless of
their race, their color, their creed, their religion, their belief -- solid
ground for EVERY American that claims unalienable rights to stand on moral
principle and DEMAND RESPECT for MORAL DECENCY!  

That, that document is the Declaration of Independence.  The document which
 states the fundamental PREMISES of this nation's life, and which puts at the
heart of our national identity not the existence of rights, but the existence
of GOD.  And which PUTS it there, not as a matter of Christian faith, not as
a matter of Jewish faith, not as a matter of personal faith, but as a matter
of AMERICAN faith:  an *American* creed, an *American* belief, that which
unites us one and all on the common ground of PRINCIPLE that makes us one
nation, under God!  <applause>

But if we present our moral case leaving out that essential bridge, we will
not win, we WILL be defeated.  We will not serve the cause of right, but we
could very well at this critical moment lead it to a defeat that will mean,
quite frankly, the end of our Republic.  That, that is -- that is -- how
profound this moment is, how deep and serious is the moment you and I are
facing.

We not only have to stand before the American people and advocate a return to
moral principle, we have to do it IN / THE / RIGHT / WAY, AND / ON / THE /
RIGHT / BASIS.  And however much our hearts cry for it in their faith, if we
mean to unite ALL Americans in that commitment to moral principle, then we
cannot do it in a way that appears to demand that they adhere to OUR
religious conviction as a condition of their American identity.  We cannot do
it in a way that demands, that seems to foment, RELIGIOUS CONFLICT, when we
mean in fact merely to offer only moral healing.

And I say HERE and NOW, that our vocation as moral conservatives should not
BE to fight a cultural war.  It should be to offer that hand of moral HEALING
to this nation, that will bring to it the PEACE that it deserves:  the peace
of HEART, the peace of MIND, the peace in the SCHOOLS, the peace in the
STREETS, that we should OFFER our children, and that we MUST offer to the
next generation.<applause>

I have been asked, I have been asked in the last few days, and I'm sure it's
been on the minds of some folks here:  "Now ,why doesn't that Keyes fellow
just withdraw, and let Pat Buchanan move along?"  

I'll tell you why not.  I'll tell you exactly why not.  Because *I* believe
that we CANNOT present our moral conservative convictions under a guise that
divides this country.  I believe that we have to present it with the serious,
thoughtful truth.  And when I stand up to say that abortion is wrong, my
heart, my Christian heart knows that it's wrong 'cause God SAYS that it's
wrong, because he has DECLARED:  "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew
thee."  I know, that we begin not as a moment in the womb, but as a moment in
the Mind of God. 

But though I feel it in my Christian heart, when I speak it from my lips as
an American politician I shall speak it with the words of American principle,
that ALL Americans -- regardless of their faith, regardless of their
background -- must heed, must respect, or else we lose it all.  And I think
that that's the ONLY way that we can hope to call this nation back to moral
principle.  

We cannot do it in a way that suggests that we aim for religious domination,
because none of us do.  I stand before you a Roman Catholic; I think it would
be real strange if I suddenly started to tell the rest of you that my
personal religious conviction was gonna be translated into the laws of this
country.  I have a feeling a few of you might think that that would mean the
Pope was gonna decide how you read the Bible.  And I remember that a couple
of centuries ago people took a lot of pains to make it clear that was not
going be their way.  

I think we have to back off and understand that if we mean to do this the
right way, we must do it the American way.  And the American way is not the
Bible and the Constitution alone.  It is the Bible, the DECLARATION, and the
Constitution.  For the Declaration has shaped *America's* heart, and
*America's* conscience, and allows us to come together in heart and
conscience, in pursuit of moral principle, without fear of domination,
without division, without conflict, without war -- in healing, in hope.  

I believe THAT, THAT'S what we must offer to this nation, as Christian
statesmen:  not the bid for power and the domination of our Christian faith,
but the heart of love, and the heart of healing, that was the essence of
Christ's example.  It is in that spirit of Christ's love that we can stand
before the world and declare with great confidence that if OUR leadership
prevails this nation shall return to that true ground which is the ground of
our common humanity -- a humanity shaped in light of God's power and
authority, but in which the consciences of all of God's human creations are
left free of government domination.  

And so I'm going to stand in this race and articulate that view from now
until the end, in the hope that Christian people will understand that we
cannot afford only to follow the dictates of our religious faith, we must
shape our participation in American life with that wisdom the Savior
demanded, and use the great treasure that God in his providence has given us:
 an *American* heritage that is also grounded in respect for His Will.

Thank you very much.

<applause and standing ovation>

-------------------------------
Online distribution:
Kristin R. Kazyak

 Thank you for posting that.  I haven't time to read it all now, but
 will prior to the primary.  I can say, that should I decided not to vote
 for Pat, I *will* vote for Alan.  Those are my only choices.



 
Jim

Yow.  The man's good.  Thank you for posting that.  It's right on the money.

Paul

    He's no superman, but he *is* a true statesman.

 I cast my vote this morning for Pat Buchanan.  I had made up my mind
 several months ago, and having recently become interested in Alan
 Keyes, it became a toss up.  But, ultimately I went with Pat as I
 felt that he will be the one who can stand up to Clinton and challenge
 him on his record as President.  I'm afraid I can't see Bob Dole being
 able to do that, particularly when it comes to debates as we enter
 the fall election season.  And, in my opinion, Clinton *must* be defeated.



 Jim

	Jim, do you think the majority of the people in this country are to the
left, the right, or moderate? My guess is moderate. Pat probably won't get any
of the left to go to him, and may have a hard time convincing the moderates to
swing his way. I guess that will depend on how much they dislike Clinton. 


Glen

>	Jim, do you think the majority of the people in this country are to the
>left, the right, or moderate? My guess is moderate. Pat probably won't get any
>of the left to go to him, and may have a hard time convincing the moderates to
>swing his way. I guess that will depend on how much they dislike Clinton. 


 I believe we're going to find that the majority of the people in this country
 are to the right, and that many of those to the right "silently" support
 Buchanan.

 Ultimately, I hope the American people will support a man who "means what
 he says and says what he means" and doesn't waffle.  What Pat Buchanan
 believed 4 years ago, Pat Buchanan believes today.  I don't believe we
 can say that about the current occupant of the White House, nor can we
 say it about Dole.  The only others in the pack who don't waffle, that I
 know of are Keyes and Dornan.



 Jim

    In my eyes, Dole isn't much different than Clintoon.  Dole is a
    Republican by name only.  They both are wheelin' & dealin' chameleons.
    Look at Dole's voting record and you'll see all the tax increases that
    he supported, along with the liberals.
    
    Buchanan is expected to do very well in very conservative AZ on the
    27th.
    
    Mike

    
    Of course I can't predict what will occur in New Hampshire but it is
    apparantly in the realm of possibility that Buchanan will win.  Who
    would have ever thought this possible?!
    
    jeff

 Amazing indeed.  But I do feel that he has more supporters out there
 than many people think.



 Jim

	Jim, Buchanan may still believe what he did 4 years ago, but what he 
believes in may or may not be good.

	For example, I used to be very predjudice. If I did not change, I still
would be very predjudice. Changing ones mind about something does not mean that
it is bad.


Glen

>	Jim, Buchanan may still believe what he did 4 years ago, but what he 
>believes in may or may not be good.

  My point is, he does not change his views to win votes.  The current occupant
 of the White House has changed his views so many times most people have no
 idea what he believes (one commentator asked if Pat Buchanan had written his
 state of the Union message for example) or stands for.
  
 I fully understand that there are those who don't agree with Buchanan, or Dole
 or others.


>	For example, I used to be very predjudice. If I did not change, I still
>would be very predjudice. Changing ones mind about something does not mean that
>it is bad.


Of course not.  But that is not what I'm talking about.




Jim

| <<< Note 209.116 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "We shall behold Him!" >>>


| My point is, he does not change his views to win votes.  The current occupant
| of the White House has changed his views so many times most people have no
| idea what he believes (one commentator asked if Pat Buchanan had written his
| state of the Union message for example) or stands for.

	I will agree with this for the most part. I do believe many of the
changes he has made though were due to his having a change of heart, and not to
win votes. But what %, I don't know for sure. A guess would be under 50%. But
when one does change their mind as much as he does, it is hard to know how much
of it is for votes, and how much of it is for real. 

| Of course not.  But that is not what I'm talking about.

	But part of that does come into play with this. I'm not saying he is,
but what if Buchanan was found to be in line with the white supremist groups on
a lot of ideals. Should he change his views, or hold fast to them?

Glen

 Glen, we disagree.  Let's leave it at that.





 Jim

    I admit to being an 'outsider' in all this broo-hah...
    
    Last night, a current affairs program on the Australian ABC
    (public funded national broadcast network) had an item on the US
    primaries that were held in NH this week. Particularly on Pat Buchanan.
    
    I must admit to being just a little disturbed at what I saw. Some of
    the racist comments he made to foreign journalists, and about the
    Japanese, and (most distressing) the labelling of him as 'anti-Semite'.
    
    I dunno, maybe it's just the media up to its' old tricks again :'{ 
    
    H

 
  Pat came under fire last night for comments made at a campaign stop in NH
 on Tuesday.  There was a huge crush of media (to the point security
 people had to tell them to get back as his nephew was being crushed by
 the throng.  After one question was asked regarding his trade policies,
 a reporter from France asked him a question..he jokingly asked "are you
 an American?" (laughs eminated from the rest of the press corps).

 He has been labeled "anti semite" because of statements in columns taken 
 out of context.  Recently he drew the label for his defense of a 
 person of German descent living in the US who was charged with war crimes
 for his alleged involvement with the Nazis.  Buchanan stood by him, and
 he was ultimately cleared, and Buchanan received an apology and kudos
 from the Israeli government.


 It is best to listen to Pat speak, rather than the media telling what he
 says.



 Jim

    hmmm,
    
    he might need to speak up a bit to be heard here in Oz ;')
    
    H

 You'll be hearing about him ;-)

    Re: Note 209.111 by CSLALL::HENDERSON
    
    I hate to disagree with you, bro, but on this point I must...
    
� I believe we're going to find that the majority of the people in this country
� are to the right, and that many of those to the right "silently" support
� Buchanan.
    
    If "the majority of the people in this country" were to the right, the
    country wouldn't be in the (bad) shape it's in today.
    
    I hope Buchanan stays in the race long enough for me to vote for him
    here in Ohio (March 19). I don't think he can win, but then I don't
    think any of the candidates can beat Clinton (and not because Clinton
    is the best person for the job! ;-) - but I will vote my heart on this
    one.
    
    As for all of the "piling on" now that Buchanan has won Alaska,
    Louisana, (2nd in) Iowa, and New Hampshire - it's predictable. Both the
    media and the old Republican guard are afraid. Expect to see lots more
    lies and distortions to be heaped upon Pat. His fight is not against
    flesh and blood...
    
    	BD�

 I was referring to what Nixon called to as "the silent majority".  Even in the
 last few days I've spoken to people who are leaning towards him.  We'll see
 what happens.  It's going to be interesting.  The dems and liberal repubs
 are sure nervous about *something*.



 Jim

    Buchanan is our last hope.  The old Republican guard still doesn't
    realize just how many conservatives are in this country.  The Democrats
    have no clue regardless.  
    
    Buchanan will force the exposure of who the real conservative Republicans 
    are and who just "playing" one to get elected.
    
    As for the media, they say the same things about us as Christians as
    they do Buchanan.  It's nothing new.  God will have the last word no
    matter what.  If Buchanan is God's man, it will confound the "wise."  I
    love nothing more when a person like Buchanan defies their logic
    despite the accusations.
    
    Mike

I had a dream the other night, which I didn't understand.
A figure walking through the mist, with a flintlock in his hand.
His clothes were torn and dirty, as he stood there by my bed.
He took off his three-cornered hat, and speaking low, he said:

	We fought a revolution to secure our liberty;
	We wrote the Constitution as a shield from tyranny;
	For future generations, this legacy we gave;
	In this, the land of the free, home of the brave.

	The freedom we secured for you we hoped you'd always keep;
	But tyrants labored endlessly, while your parents were asleep;
	Your freedom gone, your courage lost, you're no more than a slave.
	Is this the purchase that we made by the many lives we gave?

	You buy permits to travel, and permits to own a gun;
	Permits to start a business, or to build a space for one;
	On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent;
	Although you have no voice in choosing how your money's spent.

	Your children must attend a school that doesn't educate;
	Your moral values can't be taught, according to the state;
	You read about the current news in a very biased press;
	You pay a tax you do not owe to please the IRS.

	Your money is no longer made of silver or of gold;
	You trade your wealth for plastic, so your life can be controlled;
	You pay for crimes that make our nation turn from God in shame;
	You've taken Satan's number, as you've traded in your name.

	You've given government control to those who do you harm;
	So they can padlock churches and steal the family farm;
	And keep your country deep in debt, put men of God in jail;
	Harass your fellow countrymen, while corrupted courts prevail.

	Your public servants don't uphold the solemn oath they've sworn;
	Your daughters visit doctors so their children won't be born;
	Your leaders ship artillery and guns to foreign shores;
	And send your sons to slaughter, fighting other people's wars.

	Can you regain your freedom, for which we fought and died?
	Or don't you have the courage, or the faith to stand with pride?
	Are there no more values for which you'll fight to save?
	Or do you wish your children live in fear and be enslaved?

	Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand!
	Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of our land!
	Preserve our great Republic, and each God-given right!
	And pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright!

As I awoke, he vanished, in the mist from whence he came.
His words were true, we are not free, and we have ourselves to blame.
For even now, as tyrants trample each God-given right,
We only watch and tremble, too afraid to stand and fight.

If he stood by your bedside, in a dream while you're asleep,
And wondered what remains of your rights he fought to keep,
What would be your answer, If he called out from the grave?
Is this still the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave?---Anonymous

    I need clarification on a couple things about Buchanan:
    
    1. Anyone know for sure if he is born again or not?
    2. Is he really a descendant of President James Buchanan? (from the 1800s)
    
    thanks,
    Mike

>    1. Anyone know for sure if he is born again or not?

God knows.

/john

Or this:

                     Of Truth and Tolerance....at Easter
                           by Patrick J. Buchanan

April 3, 1994

"Truly, this was the Son of God." So spoke the Roman sentry on Calvary on
that first Good Friday as he saw the heavens darken at the death of the Man
on the Cross.

That soldier uttered the greatest truth ever spoken. He had looked up and
seen in that agonized face the answer to the question Pontius Pilate had
posed only hours before, on sentencing Christ to His death on the cross:
"What is truth?"

For two rnillennia, Christians have sought to conform their lives to the
truths revealed by Christ. None since has done so perfectly, but many have
suffered martyrdom rather than deny those truths.

Yet, for decades now, in this country to whose greatness and goodness
Christianity has contributed so much, it has been a violation of the
Constitution to teach these truths to children in public schools, or to pay
homage in our public square to the Man who taught us how to live. Indeed,
under our First Amendment, fallacies and falsehoods are guaranteed the same,
in some cases superior, protection to the truths of the New Testament.

Consider the folly of what we have attempted.

We would not deny children the healthiest and most nutritious foods, lest
their growth be stunted, and permanent damage be done. Yet, by court order,
we starve them of a diet of the greatest truths ever taught We may instruct
them in good manners in school, but not in the greatest moral code ever put
down on paper.

Because teaching them the truth would violate their rights.

Outside public schools, in the market place of ideas, morally ruinous dogmas
from racism to rancid pornography are accorded the same protection as the
Gospels. Indeed, for the American Civil Liberties Union, the defense of
pernicious dogma has become an obsession.

What is the effect of this doctrine of the moral equivalence of all ideas --
except religious ideas -- on society? It is like granting polluters the same
right to dump sewage into the main water supply as we grant the men who put
in the chlorine that purifies it.

For generations now, we have denied the food of revealed truth to our
children; and we have permit the moral polluters to dump their garbage into
our culture with abandon. Why then, are we surprised that ours has become a
stunted and sick society?

Under the hallowed doctrine of "academic freedom," all ideas are to be
accorded equal access to the university. Why? Because, or so we are told,
competition of ideas is the best way to discover truth. Fine. But, what do
we do when we find the truth? Do we yet continue to allow the propagation of
falsehoods? If so, why? When men learned the Earth was round, did they allow
their geographers to continue to teach that it was flat?

Comes the answer: Well, in matters of science we may know truth, but in
matters of morality we can never know. In this realm, one man's opinion is
as good as another, and no one has the right to impose his morality on
someone else. And any attempt to give the moral code of Christianity
superior status is "intolerance."

Six decades ago, a great moral teacher saw it all coming. In a provocative
1931 essay, "A Plea for Intolerance" Fulton J. Sheen wrote, America it is
said is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from
tolerance, tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil,
Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so over run with the bigoted, as
it is over run with the broadminded.

What is true tolerance? "Tolerance," wrote Msgr. Sheen, is "an attitude of
reasoned patience towards evil . . .a forbearance that restrains us from
showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to
persons...never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to
the error.... Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for
skyscraper as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratories." And
just as those who build skyscrapers and perform surgery must be intolerant
of foolish and false ideas so too, must those who would build nations -- or
preserve societies.

"Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must
be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us
from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the
foundation of stability."

"If you would see his monuments, look about you! is the epitaph chiseled on
the tomb of London's master builder, Christopher Wren. If you would see the
monuments of a society that has come to consider the truths that Jesus
Christ taught as one among an indefinite variety of moral codes by which to
live, look around you.

Amen, and Happy Easter

>    love nothing more when a person like Buchanan defies their logic
>    despite the accusations.
    
 
 This is one of the things I love about Buchanan.  I watched his victory
 speech from Tuesday night (which I taped) and he had me guffawing as he
 was talking about them trying to figure him out.  Jack Williams, a local
 TV news guy, interviewed him on Tuesday.  Williams put on his Sam Donaldson
 face and tried to attack Pat from every side.  Buchanan, as he does with
 all of them, answered him straightforward and had williams wimpering and
 running off with his tail between his legs.

 He talks about the issues.  He has answers for the issues.   The other guys
 can't do anything but call him names.  Dole used the word "intolerant" 
 yesterday referring to Buchanan, and Alexander referred to "Buchananism".


 Jim

    Has anyone read Pat's book, "Right from the Beginning?" I wouldn't be
    surprised if he talks about his faith in there. (I haven't read it -
    yet.)
    
    	BD�

 I was looking for it in the LIbrary today (and a couple bookstores)
 The Library copy is out, and bookstores don't have it.




 JIm

RE: .129 and others


>                     Of Truth and Tolerance....at Easter
>                           by Patrick J. Buchanan


I went to hear Pat Buchanan speak afew weeks ago.  The man is intolerant
of anybody who believes anything different.  The man is a NAZI.  I am
defining NAZI as someone who focuses the hatred and/or fears of others 
for his/her own gain, in this case for political power.  He is an
excellent speaker and did a great job focusing peoples fear of foreigners,
misunderstanding of gays, and pushing christian prayer in school as 
the solution to an assortment of problems.

As a Jewish American, I am frightened by the prospect of a president
that would make this a christan country and make me a 2nd class
citizen.

Pat talks about the "truths of the New Testament" and the fact that
they are not allowed in public school.  The New Testament is something 
that christans *believe* to be true.  That is fine with me, but it
is not something Jews believe to be truth.  Teaching childern about
religion belongs in the home or church/synagogue, not in public schools.

>What is the effect of this doctrine of the moral equivalence of all ideas --
>except religious ideas -- on society? It is like granting polluters the same
>right to dump sewage into the main water supply as we grant the men who put
>in the chlorine that purifies it.

	I'd like to believe that he is not comparing other religions
	to sewage.

>For generations now, we have denied the food of revealed truth to our
>children; and we have permit the moral polluters to dump their garbage into
>our culture with abandon. Why then, are we surprised that ours has become a
>stunted and sick society?

	*revealed truth* is christian truth, not universal truth.
	It is the parents who have the responsibility to teach their
	children about religion, not the schools.

>                                                              But, what do
>we do when we find the truth? Do we yet continue to allow the propagation of
>falsehoods? If so, why? When men learned the Earth was round, did they allow
>their geographers to continue to teach that it was flat?

	Again, Pat is using "truth" in regard to his religious beliefs.
	They are not universal truths.  He is showing his intolerance
	of other religious beliefs.

| <<< Note 209.125 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Buchanan is our last hope.  The old Republican guard still doesn't
| realize just how many conservatives are in this country.  The Democrats
| have no clue regardless.

	Mike, don't hold your breath. You have to remember the only reason he
won NH was because the moderate vote was split between 3 people. Dole (26%),
Alexander (23%) and Forbes (12%). If Forbes were to drop out, Dole and
Alexander would more than likely get his %. That would put both candidates
ahead of him. He won't win, and I thank God for that every single day.

	But when you say, GO PAT GO!!!, Clinton is saying the very same thing.

| are and who just "playing" one to get elected.

	Yeah...force exposure...such a good thing. And how many other things
will he try to expose that he has no business with?



Glen

	Steve, never looked at it from that angle before. I have to admit, you
made some very good points.


Glen

>             <<< Note 209.133 by TELFON::MAILMAN "Steve Mailman" >>>
>
>As a Jewish American, I am frightened by the prospect of a president
>that would make this a christan country and make me a 2nd class
>citizen.
    
    I seriously doubt that would happen.  The president just doesn't have
    that much power here.  The concentration of power is in Congress. 
    Besides, true Christians wouldn't make anyone a "2nd class citizen." 
    Anyone who does this doesn't deserve to be called Christian or Jewish.
    Finally, like it or not, America was founded as a Christian country in
    1776 with freedom of religion.  It's been a haven for centuries for
    several different religions, but always with the understanding that
    this was first and foremost a Christian country.  When one moves to
    Israel today, the same assimilation is generally expected.  The 1000s
    of Jewish immigrants fulfilling prophecy by returning home today are
    all being educated in the Hebrew language, culture, and Judaism.  This
    keeps Judaism from being diluted.  If you give every John & Susie Public 
    free reign with their religion you end up with Babylon, the birthplace of 
    all the world's false religions.  You are free to worship as you wish 
    here, but this is a Christian country.

>Pat talks about the "truths of the New Testament" and the fact that
>they are not allowed in public school.  The New Testament is something 
>that christans *believe* to be true.  That is fine with me, but it
>is not something Jews believe to be truth.  Teaching childern about
>religion belongs in the home or church/synagogue, not in public schools.

    Neither should they teach in school matters regarding sexual
    lifestyles, alternative religions, alternative philosophies,
    visualization, role playing, fantasizing, and other new
    age thinking/techniques.  These also belong in the home or 
    church/synagogue.
    
>	*revealed truth* is christian truth, not universal truth.
>	It is the parents who have the responsibility to teach their
>	children about religion, not the schools.
    
    Agreed, but the problem is that our screwed up public school system has
    overstepped their boundaries of Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic and
    usurped parental authority and responsibility.

>	Again, Pat is using "truth" in regard to his religious beliefs.
>	They are not universal truths.  He is showing his intolerance
>	of other religious beliefs.
    
    As long as the Bill of Rights is honored, anyone can worship as they
    wish.  Pat's comments are not intolerant within the context of a 
    Christian country.
    
    Mike

>>What is the effect of this doctrine of the moral equivalence of all ideas --
>>except religious ideas -- on society? It is like granting polluters the same
>>right to dump sewage into the main water supply as we grant the men who put
>>in the chlorine that purifies it.
>
>	I'd like to believe that he is not comparing other religions
>	to sewage.

No, he's not.

He's talking about morality.  Sewage is condoms instead of the ten
commandments, abortion rights instead of respect for life, and alternate
lifestyles instead of a man cleaving to his wife.

/john

� 209.128 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
�     -< See "The City and the Crusade" at 
�			www.buchanan.org/christen.html >-
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I can't pick this one up, John.  Does it need anything more than http:\\ in 
front, and shuol dthe '/' be a '\'?


								Andrew

Well, with a modern browser, that's all it needs; Netscape and Spyglass Mosaic
will assume "http://" in front of anything that doesn't begin with "ftp" or
"gopher" (in which case they will assume ftp:// or gopher://).

I've never seen a "\" used in any URL.

/john

BTW, Eric Ewanco has pointed out one place in that particular document where
Pat shows an unfortunate misunderstanding of what he was supposed to have been
taught, or at least an unfortunate choice of words.

Maybe Eric should write to him and straighten him out on the actual doctrine.

/john

    I watched 4 of the candidates "debate" (I hate using that word; I have
    yet to see a real debate among politicians) at Arizona State University
    last night. I was thinking of you, Mike.
    
    	BD�

    Re: Note 209.138 by ICTHUS::YUILLE
    

�� 209.128 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
��			www.buchanan.org/christen.html >-
�			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

�I can't pick this one up, John.  Does it need anything more than http:\\ in 
�front, and shuol dthe '/' be a '\'?
    
    I just accessed the (purported) official "Buchanan for President Home
    Page". Its URL is:
    
    		http://www.buchanan.org/
    
    	BD�

    I hear ya, Barry.  Parking was a madhouse at school last night as I was
    in the building next to Gammage Auditorium (designed by Frank Lloyd
    Wright!).  If I didn't have an exam last night, I would've skipped
    school.  At least I got home in time to watch it on TV.
    
    Mike

 I watched part of it, then taped it early this AM when CSPAN ran it
 again.




 Jim

>    I just accessed the (purported) official "Buchanan for President Home
>    Page". Its URL is:
>    
>    		http://www.buchanan.org/

Yep.  I think that one is real.  www.buchanan96.org, www.clinton96.org,
www.dole96.org, and some others like that are spoofs.  Warning: I've been
informed that a "Hillary Clinton" link on the clinton96 spoof leads to
a porno site.

/john

re.209

> I am defining NAZI as someone who focuses the hatred and/or fears of others 
> for his/her own gain, in this case for political power.

Well that broad brush pretty much includes everybody in Washington D.C..

8*)  8*)   

    Dole has already lost Tuesday's AZ primary by stiffing us.  We're
    talking about a state that purposely voted down MLK day when they used
    the Super Bowl as a threat against us if we didn't vote for it.  You just 
    don't do things like that to this state.  Dole obviously didn't show up
    for the debate because he got hammered in the last one in NH and isn't
    fast enough on his feet like Clinton to lie his way through it.  AZ is
    a lose-lose situation for him.
    
    The last poll I saw showed a 3-way tie in AZ between Buchanan, Forbes,
    and Alexander with 19% undecided.  This poll was taken Tuesday before
    the NH results and before last night's debate.  I'd be shocked if
    Buchanan doesn't win AZ.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 209.136 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Finally, like it or not, America was founded as a Christian country in
| 1776 with freedom of religion.  

	If freedom of religion is true, then this wasn't a Christian country.
Christian would be part of it, but not exclusively.

| but always with the understanding that this was first and foremost a Christian
| country.  

	Christian under who's standard? Your interpretation of what you think
God says is Christianity, or someone elses?

| Neither should they teach in school matters regarding sexual lifestyles, 
| alternative religions, alternative philosophies, visualization, role playing, 
| fantasizing, and other new age thinking/techniques. These also belong in the 
| home or church/synagogue.

	Religion could be taught in schools, and I think it would be a good
thing to have as an elective. But it can't, because of a certain law. The above
are not covered by that, or any other law.

| As long as the Bill of Rights is honored, anyone can worship as they
| wish.  Pat's comments are not intolerant within the context of a
| Christian country.

	Mike, if a country has religious freedom, then you can't talk like the
others don't exist or you get the label of being intolerant. Pat has earned
that label for those reasons.


Glen

 Glen, perhaps a trip to the library is in order.  Do some reading on 
 George Washington, James Monroe, and many of those who were around to
 frame the constitution and declaration of Independance.  See how they
 felt about Christianity and it's role in the founding of this country.
 Read up on the pilgrims who came to this country, and why they came and
 to whom they dedicated their journey.  Then, take a look at the trends in
 this country since God has been removed from the classroom, since He has
 been declared as "irrelevant".  Let us know what you find.

 Buchanan is reaching the many, many people in this country who are fed
 up seeing their Christian faith trod upon, and ruled as irrelevant in
 society today, while at the same time seeing the morality slip farther and
 farther into the sewer.



 Jim

    ...but Jim, being a liberal is so much easier than thinking! ;-)

 In fact, I'd save Glen a trip to the library and mail him a video tape
 called "our Godly Heritage", if he were truly interested.




Jim

| <<< Note 209.149 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "We shall behold Him!" >>>

| Glen, perhaps a trip to the library is in order.  Do some reading on
| George Washington, James Monroe, and many of those who were around to
| frame the constitution and declaration of Independance.  See how they
| felt about Christianity and it's role in the founding of this country.

	Was Thomas Jefferson a Christian? I believe I read somewhere he was
NOT.

| Buchanan is reaching the many, many people in this country who are fed up 
| seeing their Christian faith trod upon, and ruled as irrelevant in society 
| today, while at the same time seeing the morality slip farther and farther 
| into the sewer.

	With the moderate vote split right now, Buchanan is winning. The
moderate candidates are now saying Buchanan is bringing down the republican 
party. Who do you think the moderate voters are more likely to vote for if
Buchanan wins? Clinton.


Glen

| <<< Note 209.150 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| ...but Jim, being a liberal is so much easier than thinking! ;-)

	Actually, being liberal allows you to think. You're not held to archaic
ways that don't work and don't include everyone. Sure, it's much easier to just
build up a place where either you are like <insert person>, or you're nobody. I
somehow can't find Christian Values in that.

	But it was nice to see that Buchanan laid off the border people for a
day yesterday. Japan was his target though. Always someone......

| <<< Note 209.151 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "We shall behold Him!" >>>



| In fact, I'd save Glen a trip to the library and mail him a video tape
| called "our Godly Heritage", if he were truly interested.


	Mail it to me, Jim

    Hello again,
    
    I'm curious...  Has anyone actually read .105?  If not, please do.
    If so, why ignore such a crucial message?  I'm a conservative, but
    I'm becoming as concerned as the "liberals" who have posted replies
    here, though possibly for different reasons.
    
    The *founding principles* of this country are stated by the Declaration
    of Independence: *All human beings* are *created equal* and *endowed by
    our Creator* with the unalienable rights to *life*, *liberty*, and the
    pursuit of happiness.  This is *the only* *American* basis for agreement
    among our diverse peoples.  Alan Keyes is correct on this point, and
    his stand will be vindicated as true.  The rest of us would do well to
    listen and heed his words.
    
    Do you want conservative values to triumph in this country?  Then
    *do it the right way*, and don't try any shortcut that fails to unify
    this nation solidly on its founding principles.

	Jim, Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington were diests, weren't they? 

	And didn't certain people campain against Jefferson because of his 
satance on state sponsored religion?

	Yup...this nation was formed on Christian values.... 



Glen

    I dunno about "Jim" as a founding father. ;-)
    
    You're right about Jefferson; he was a deist.  As governor of Virginia,
    he proposed a system of free public education that would have mandated
    the inclusion of Biblical studies.
    
    Benjamin Franklin was also a deist.  He was a man of rather loose
    personal morals.
    
    Slapping the "deist" label on George Washington seems rather a stretch.
    To me, he seems to have been a genuine Christian.  However, I would be
    interested in any evidence to the contrary you may want to present.
    
    >	Yup...this nation was formed on Christian values.... 
    
    Do you really believe that, or are you being sarcastic?  (See?  I asked
    before assuming!)  It's a fair statement that some of the founding
    fathers did not personally hold orthodox Christian views, faith, and/or
    morals.  However, it's also true that others were, in fact, Christians.
    
    All of the signers of the Declaration, whatever their personal faith and
    personal failings, believed that the Creator is the only one with the
    authority to unalterably endow all human beings with the rights (and
    attendant responsibilities) to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
    happiness.  They believed this so fervently that they were willing to
    put their own lives and property at risk, and many of them subsequently
    lost one or both.
    
    The values they expressed are not *exclusively* Christian, but they
    are *entirely* compatible with Christianity (and Judaism, and other
    *compatible* faiths and non-faiths).  The founding principles expressed
    in the Declaration form the *common ground* for the formation and
    preservation of the American republic, composed of people who are
    diverse, yet united by these principles.
    
    If our leaders (and we ourselves, since we are all, in some sense,
    leaders) fail to act and speak in accordance with the founding
    principles, then our republic is in jeopardy.  I believe that is
    the situation today.  All of us have lost sight of our founding
    principles, so much that we often fail to recognize the truth when
    we hear it.
    

>	Jim, Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington were diests, weren't they? 

        While you're at the library, look up George Washington's final
        speech as president, as well as Franklin's views on Christianity's
        role in the founding of this nation.



>	And didn't certain people campain against Jefferson because of his 
>satance on state sponsored religion?



    Jefferson's "separatoin of church and state" letter has been misinterpreted
     by many (particularly 20th century versions of the Superem Court) to
    mean that there should be no link between government and church.  By
    reading the context, and the issue to which the letter was addressed, that
    is not the case


>	Yup...this nation was formed on Christian values.... 


  Without a doubt, that is a true statement.




 Jim

  Tonight I watched the video "Our Nations God;y Heritage" which
 includes writings of the founding fathers as well as members of
 the supreme courts over the years, and includes testbooks in use
 ini public schools as lsate as the mid 40's, that clearly sho
 the role of Christinity and the authority of the Bible inthe founding
 of this country.  It is quite clear.




 (sorry for typos...bad line).



Jim

| <<< Note 209.157 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>


| Do you really believe that, or are you being sarcastic?  

	Purely sarcastic. And THANKS for asking. :-)

| It's a fair statement that some of the founding fathers did not personally 
| hold orthodox Christian views, faith, and/or morals. However, it's also true 
| that others were, in fact, Christians.

	I agree fully with the above. The point I was making was Jim asked me
to go read. I was merely pointing out that the big three were not Christians.
You know, the ones who were some of the most vocal? I think it might have had
something to do with the seperation of church and state clause....seems like it
would be good to have religious freedom when it was obvious that not all were
Christian to begin with. And it is also obvious that this nation had many
different values brought into play when the country was formed. ie, it was not
really as much of a Christian nation as some would try and make it to be.

| All of the signers of the Declaration, whatever their personal faith and
| personal failings, believed that the Creator is the only one with the
| authority to unalterably endow all human beings with the rights (and
| attendant responsibilities) to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  

	That's fine. But it appears that one did not have to be a Christian to
believe the above. So why all the clammer of this being formed as a Christian
nation when it really isn't totally true? Christianity was part of it, I will
give you that. But far from the only thing.

| The values they expressed are not *exclusively* Christian, but they are 
| *entirely* compatible with Christianity 

	If someone had compatible beliefs to Christianity, does it make them a
Christian? NO. Being compatible does not make anything equal to, like you
stated above. So who is to say this started out as a Christian nation when it
appears that Christianity is compatible with other religions as well? 



Glen

  What "separation of church and state clause"?  there is no such thing.

  I strongly suggest you check the early supreme court rulings, specifically
  the writings of the first supreme court Justice, John Jay, and subsequent
  rulings.  Check out the early textbooks in use in school, check out
  the writings of Daniel Webster..


 Jim

Alan Keyes:  The American Dream... 
                Not Defined Simply in Materialistic, Economic Terms

Speech to CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee)
8AM, Friday, February 23, 1996
-----------------------------------------------------
        Transcript by Kristin R. Kazyak

<introduction omitted; available from http://sandh.com/keyes/index.html>

Well, good morning!   We obviously have a lot of dedicated people *here! *
You managed to get up and hear me talk at this hour!  I appreciate that.
But I'm glad of the opportunity to come to an organization that is identified
in this nation's life with the very heart of conservative principles and
politics to talk a little bit about what is going on today in the wake of
what is quite clearly now, I'm afraid to say, the end of the Reagan era in
the 1996 election campaign.

And I have to tell you that what I see going on right now dismays me greatly.
And I think that all of us, who have over the years stood up in the
conservative cause, fought for conservative principles, been vilified for
our steadfast *adherence* to conservative views ought to be dismayed.  

We see the conservative label out there are a lot lately.  Have you noticed
that?

You especially see it, I've been noticing in the commercials, there's one
candidate, for instance who uses the "conservative" label as if it were a
Party label, now.  And it says, "So and so, *CONSERVATIVE." *
Now, you examine the issues in the background of this individual and what you
find is that, he's one of the *least* qualified to bear that term in the
race!  *But* his manipulators have told him, this is what you've got to
appear to be, if you are to move ahead in the Republican Party.  It doesn't
matter what views you have.  Just slap a "conservative" label on it and
we'll redefine it.

And those of us who have been working in these vineyards for a long time,
ought to be deeply concerned.  Because I, at least, look back on a career
now of a couple of decades and more of *active* involvement in conservative
causes and public life in a relatively prominent way, and I say to myself,
are we just going to allow folks to march in, steal the label, define it any
way they please, and march off again, as if nobody has done the work, nobody
has struggled in the effort, nobody has spent their days in the wilderness
to reach the point where the American people understand that the conservative
alternative is the right alternative, but are now faced with a whole range
of choices that amount to lying about what that alternative means.

Are we incapable today, from a political platform, of articulating in a
cogent way, exactly what it is that we stand for?  See, I don't think so.  I
realize that for some people who call themselves conservative, the end of the
cold war was a hard time.  Because they had spent all their time focusing on
communism, defining themselves in anti-communist terms, understanding their
conservatism in terms of their opposition to communist views.  And they have
a problem.

And I've actually got to tell you, I think that's Pat Buchanan's problem.
Pat was a good staunch anti-communist.  Take the communist out of the
picture and he no longer knows how to think like a conservative.  He is
right now...   
<boos and hissing from Buchananites>

He is...  
<boos and hissing from Buchananites>

You can say what you please.
<boos and hissing continue from Buchananites>

*I* am a conservative.  I believe that government 
<thunderous applause, while booing continues>   hold it...

I believe the bedrock principle in practical terms of conservatism is that
government is *not* the answer to the problems of this nation. 
<applause building, booing getting weaker>  

Government has NO economic panaceas. 
<applause building>  

Government provides NO overall solutions.  
<thunderous applause>

Government IS the problem.  
<applause continuing>

And when I see somebody standing up and LYING to the American people that
there is some protectionist panacea that will recreate jobs in this country,
I say to myself that is *NOT* a conservative principle.

*Trade socialism* is still SOCIALISM.

<THUNDEROUS applause, "yes" redounds throughout the audience, whistling,
standing ovation>

Don't get me wrong.  I'm pretty much as tough as they come on the trade
issue.  Opposed the World Trade Organization.  Opposed the GATT.  Do not
particularly think that NAFTA has been in our interest, but I'll tell you,
that's because I think we ought to be *tough* when we sit down at the
negotiating table and *not* surrender the interest of the American people
and the American worker to *foreign* interests 
<applause, whistling> that's true. 

But I am not, I am *not* in opposition to those agreements because I think
that some *protectionist* wall raised by the government is suddenly going to
stomp on the ground and raise up jobs that have disappeared.  

*That* ain't so!  And to stand before the American people and talk in
demagogic terms as if it is, does *not* make you a conservative.  Makes you
an ambitious politician willing to betray conservative principles for the
sake of your own ambition. 
<thunderous applause>

And I won't buy it.  I won't buy it.  I won't buy it because as *I* stood up
for conservatism in all these years, as *I* stood up to be vilified by Black
Liberals and called a traitor to my race, as *I* paid my dues and took *my*
licks, *I didn't DO it for the sake of representing the view that government
protectionism or government SOCIALISM  is the answer to America's problems.*
 
This nation was built / on / the / view / THAT IT / IS / THE / PEOPLE, WHO
SHAPE THE DESTINY OF THE NATION.

It is built on the view that if we have prosperity, if we have strength, if
we have jobs, it is the result of the *discipline,* the *sacrifice,* the
*creativity* of the American people, not of ANY policy inaugurated by their
government.
<applause>

And that being the case, I think, I think we have a lot of thinking to do
today because I look at all those different alternatives in the race, and
people keep asking me why it is, that supposedly with so little chance  and
so forth and so on, I'll stay in this race.

I'll stay in this race because I think that somebody has to articulate things
in terms of the real principles.  Remember the days when conservatism meant
that you stood out there to tell the truth, regardless of whether anybody
stood with you?

I still remember that.  I remember that Barry Goldwater slogan in  64   "In
your heart you know he's right."  They gave me a cake last night in Delaware
at a meeting I was at, and the slogan on it: *Keyes for President  96   In
Your Heart You Know He's Right !*

Because that's exactly what I'm hearing all over the country, folks coming
forward and saying: "You know, your message is the right message.  You're
saying all the right things.  That's where we need to be" and so forth and
so on.  

Meanwhile, they're wandering off to vote for whom?  To vote for the people
who don't deliver that message, who don't understand its real import.  And
what is the key to it all?

The key to it all is that the American Dream, the Mission of America, the
Destiny of America is not defined simply in materialistic, economic terms.
Not so.

That in point of fact, this country was founded and has maintained itself
because of a dedication to the vindication of the human capacity for self
government and freedom.  That is what we are about.

And, yes, in the course of that vindication, we've created a fantastic
economy.  We have built up all kinds of materialistic strength.  But you go
back to the roots.  You find what made it possible.  And what made it
possible was not a lot of junk about economics.   What made it possible was
that we stood *from the beginning,* on *the belief, that our freedom comes
from the Hand of God and must be exercised with respect and responsibility*
toward *His Existence and* toward *His Will. *

*THAT IS THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF AMERICAN LIFE AND AMERICAN CONSERVATISM.*
<thunderous applause>

It leads to an understanding of freedom based upon self discipline,
responsibility, and self government.  It leads to an understanding of freedom
that puts first the preservation of the character needed to sustain freedom
and of the institution that forms, shapes and transmits that character, which
is the family.

And it means that above all else, when you survey the scene in the society,
you're not going to accept the Marxist notion that economics determines
everything, *even  when it's dressed up in fancy liberal clothing and calls
itself Social Science.*

You are going to understand that the future of this nation is going to be
determined as was its past by the faith, by the spirit, by the *moral*
courage of its people.  And that lacking that moral courage, if we surrender
to the materialism of the Right *or* the Left, we will lose our freedom and
this Republic will perish.

And that's all we've got on offer right now.  These obsessive, money-mad
materialists who are presenting themselves for the presidency now.  And ALL
they want to do is talk about the jobs and the money, and the trade and the
money, and act as if ALL the problems we have in this nation are now the
result somehow of having disarranged thing economically.

You know this is a lie !  I listened the other night, in this debate we had
before New Hampshire, which in the eyes of most I apparently won, by the
way, though the media never reports these things.  
<applause>

It's all right.  It's all right.  We know we're in the midst of a lot of lies
right now but the truth will still prevail.  But I listened to these folks
and I said to myself: "It looks like all of these guys are going to try to
beat Clinton in  96 by sounding like the Clinton of  92.  Why don't we rail a
little bit against capitalism and corporate greed, why don't we come across
sounding like the socialists of the 1930's and running *down* the state and
condition of America.  Why don't we do what the Democrats did in 1988 and in
the midst of actual economic indicators that said something entirely
different, put forward a few anecdotal instances of people who have lost
their jobs and so forth and *pretend* that economic reality doesn't exist?
Why don't we do this?

Why don't we build campaigns on manipulation?  
Why don't we build them on lies?  
Why don't we build it on demagoguery and false promises?  
And that's what I heard.

I heard a lot of arcane reasoning to the effect that this economy is in awful
shape and it's Bill Clinton's fault.

I've got to tell you this is not true.  This economy is in reasonably good
shape and it ain't Bill Clinton's fault, it ain't his credit.  

IT IS THE *BUSINESS* OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.  *NOT* THE PRESIDENT AND *NOT*
THE GOVERNMENT, that we can produce, that we can produce the kind of economic
survival that we are seeing in this country today in spite of over
regulation, over taxation, a government, government call on our domestic
capital that dries up the resources we need for investment, that we *can
function as well as we do*, in spite of all those obstacles, is not a tribute
to President Clinton, it's not a tribute to the Republican Congress, *it's a
tribute to the American people.*

And we run them down, when we run down their achievement.
<thunderous applause>

But I just want to make one simple point here.  There *is* a *real* crisis in
this country.  It's not a jobs crisis.  It's not an economic crisis, though
jobs and economics play a part in it.  The crisis that we see is the crisis
that you can bring to your mind any time that you pick up a newspaper.  I got
up on the morning of the New Hampshire primary and there was somebody telling
me that the big story of the day in Concord, New Hampshire where we were
staying was, a 16 year-old who had gunned down a 14 year-old in some criminal
altercation.

Now I've got to tell you, I've seen that story everywhere I go in the country
the 14 year-olds raping the 10 year-olds, the 15 year-olds killing the 17
year-olds, the raping, the robbing, the murdering, the schools filled with
kids who go to school not armed to learn but as if they go to war, the
teachers afraid to teach, the students afraid of each other, the streets
filled with crime and violence, reaching into younger and younger ages as the
illegitimacy rate skyrockets and this nation confronts a crisis that is not a
money crisis, but a crisis of family dissolution, a crisis of the decay and
collapse of the moral character required to sustain a free society.

The symptoms of it are all around us.  The body count rises every day, and it
reaches into *every part* of these United States.  It's not just any longer
the cities and the urban ghettos but the suburbs and the rural areas, what
used to be the wholesome heartland of America.  Now palled by violence,
palled by drug abuse, and the body count rises every day.

And like those parents in a family all obsessed with materialism and money,
we, we sit about obsessing about where we will get our next raise from, or
whether the government's going to raise our allowance.  And meanwhile, the
children are on drugs and engaged in perverse and promiscuous sex and one of
them's on the verge of suicide, the family breaking down, and all we want to
know is where our next *dollar* will come from.

*This is sick.*

And if we continue with this sickness, within the course of *our* lifetimes,
people sitting in this room will *know* that the Republic that we are
supposed to preserve for our children has perished.  The consequences of this
ignorant obsession with materialistic things is that we neglect the moral
foundations of the Republic.  We *neglect* those things which are
*destroying* the underpinnings without which we cannot remain a *disciplined*
people, a *free* people.

And the consequences are clear.  We, little by little, give up that freedom.
 We start to ignore all those amendments that remind us of our God given
rights.  We start to arm government with all kinds of powers to deal with the
drug war, to deal with the crime problem and so forth and so on, because we
need that *security* and we trade for it our *freedom. *

And you know it's happening.  It's happening right now.  It's happening in
omnibus crime bills where we trade away the 4th Amendment.  It's happening in
all kinds of ways where we put things on the books that are depriving people
of their property without due process in the name of the drug war, and that
are gradually turning this society into a camp where rights have been
surrendered for the sake of an illusory security that we cannot gain, because
security in a free society must come from the discipline of the heart, not
the discipline of a police state.
<applause>

Now I think that seeing all of that you might conclude that the number one
priority in the nation's life was to restore that moral foundation.  To go
into government, yes, you know we need to go into government.  

Why am I running for president?  

-- Because the government has been responsible for the major damaging blows
against the moral character and the family structure of this country 
<applause>

-- Because a family-devouring welfare system has destroyed the families of
the poor

-- Because the family-burdening tax structure has made it more and more
difficult for working and middle class families to maintain themselves

-- *Because* a family destroying approach to education has *turned* our
children over to the NEA and Planned Parenthood and others who are leading to
a result that I found in New Hampshire the other day.  

I walk into a classroom, talk as a presidential candidate to the great issues
of the day and then spend the first twenty minutes answering questions from
the assembled *wholesome,* young people of northern New Hampshire about "xxx
xxxxxxxxx" and xxxxxxxxxxxxx.

WE HAVE TURNED / OUR / SCHOOLS / OVER TO PEOPLE WHO ARE NOW DIRECTING OUR
CHILDREN TO OBSESS ABOUT xxxxx xxxxxxxx, xxxxxx xxxxx AND *ALL WE WANT TO DO
IS *TALK* ABOUT THE BALANCED BUDGET AND THE FLAT TAX.*
<applause>

Our children, our children are not joining gangs, our children are not
obsessing about xxxxxxxxxxxxx because they have to pay a progressive income
tax.  They are doing it because on every front, starting in the 1960s, the
generation that should have stood STRONG for our values, has instead
surrendered to its children time and again, day after day, the *culture*
surrendered, the *media* surrendered, and now, it seems, the *politics*
surrendered to an obsessive desire for money and gain that is *dominating*
our souls and DESTROYING the freedom of this Republic.

I think it's time we started to wake up.  And I think it's especially the
responsibility of conservatives to help wake America up.  So I am going to
stay in this race because I am not going to join the obsessive materialists,
the money-mad politicians, who for the sake of their ambition are offering
*lies* to the American people that suggest that the future of this country
will be secure if we have *protectionist* policies, if we have *flat tax*
policies, if we *only* do the right thing with the money.  We're never going
to get it right with the money, if we don't get it right with our hearts as a
free people and we're never going to get that right until we have gone into
government and rooted out every last thing that the government is doing that
takes power, and money, and responsibility away from the grassroots people
and institutions of this country.

If Bob Dole and his buddies were articulating *that* agenda in the Congress
right now, not more government /less government, but the understanding that
the *real* alternative is:

*more* government and *destroyed* families 
or *less* government and *strong* families,

*more* government and churches *sidelined* without moral influence
or *less* government and churches *helping* to create the wholesome moral
environment we need in this country.

The alternative has *nothing* to do with government.  

WE / ARE / FIGHTING FOR THE *LIFE* OF OUR FAMILIES AND OUR NON-GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTIONS.  **
They are what should be put up as the alternative in dealing with welfare, in
dealing with crime, in dealing with ALL the problems that seem to inundate us
only because we have turned them over to bureaucrats who cannot deal with the
MORAL dimensions of human life.

And I think it's time that recognizing that problem, we put forward the
alternative in the right way.  All of these money obsessed materialists, you
know, are going to lose to Bill Clinton, *including* Pat Buchanan.  Sounding
like the Democrat of old, people will look at that and say: "Well, we have a
choice between Pat Buchanan, you know, the *nouveau arrivee*
Democrat-union-liberal, and Bill Clinton.  What shall we take?  The real or
the phony?"

I think I know.  I think the alternative ought to be between that real,
liberal, left-wing, politically correct, anti-family, anti-moral Democrat in
the White House, and a real conservative who understands that the goal here
is not to argue about the government but to reclaim the power, the money, and
to rebuild the character of the people who OUGHT to govern in this society.

And that is what I'm going to stand for.  And I'm going to stand there, by
the way, no matter what anybody does with the label "conservative" because I
know that conservatism is not a label.  Conservatism is a set of principles
born right there in the beginning of this country when they said: "We hold
these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed *by* their Creator with certain unalienable rights" and in those
words lay the foundation for justice in the Will of God, and the reverence
for God, and the discipline of a people who respect their responsibility
toward God, that has been, and remains the bedrock foundation of *real*
conservatism in these United States.  

Call it what you will.   I will *stand* on that Declaration.  I will *stand*
on those principles.  I will fight for the government *OF* the people, BY the
people, FOR the people that Abraham Lincoln said was the TRUE goal of this
society and I will *not* abandon it for *anyone,* call themselves what they
will, fight whatever they like for the sake of their political opportunism.  

I will stand where I know we *must* stand if we expect to preserve the
*freedom* of this Republic.

Thank you very much.
<thunderous applause and standing ovation>
-------------------------
Online distribution
Kristin R. Kazyak

    Re: Thomas Jefferson
    
    Anyone see the movie "Jefferson in Paris" starring Nick Nolte?  If the
    story is true in this movie, Jefferson had some severely loose morals
    as well.
    
    RE: Our country
    
    If you look back through history, the church never handled politcal
    power very well.  The church was always strongest in times of
    persecution.  This is a scary thought, but maybe God wants Clinton to
    win so that the church is purged and looses its fat.  Times of
    persecution show who the real believers are.
    
    Mike

    re:  .153
    
    One would think that after a couple of generations of liberal ideology
    being turned into policy, that all these free thinking, intelligent
    people would have figured out that it is time to give up on an ideology
    that has failed America.  
    
    But no.  It is always "we need more social spending" (spending is the
    liberal way of solving problems, it seems), even when anyone with an
    ounce of brain matter can tell, from recent recorded history, that this will
    solve nothing whatsoever.   So tell me...who is being held back by
    archaic ways?  The past 70 years have been all in one direction-
    liberal.  Seems it is time for these free thinkers to admit that their
    archaic ideology is not effective in solving America's problems.  
    
    Unfortunately, admitting error is not a part of this ideology, else
    these intelligent, free thinking individuals would have come clean by
    now.
    
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 209.164 by ACISS2::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

| One would think that after a couple of generations of liberal ideology being 
| turned into policy, that all these free thinking, intelligent people would 
| have figured out that it is time to give up on an ideology that has failed 
| America.

	Oh, it makes so much sense to cut it all off. It can't be done. There
are programs out there that have failed. There are some out there that have
worked. There are some out there that need work. The ones that work, keep.
Pretty simple. The ones that need work, fix. That will be a little harder. Oh,
btw, fixing it does not automatically mean throwing money at it. And the ones
that have failed, look to see why they failed. I seriously don't think we do
that all that often. 

| But no.  It is always "we need more social spending" (spending is the liberal 
| way of solving problems, it seems), 

	This is where you need to clarify things. More social spending. Who is
asking for it now, Steve? I do hear people saying we can't just stop it, but I
don't know who is asking for more. If you come up with some, then the next step
is to look and see if it is justifyable. I get the strong impression that
anything that is social spending is automatically bad. Whether or not that's
true, I don't know. But that is the impression you give me.

| The past 70 years have been all in one direction-liberal.  

	PUhlease..... be real. If it were liberal, then for the past 70 years,
people would have been doing something about child abuse, spousal abuse, not
hiding it like it's a secret. Of course that would also mean that sexual
discrimination would have been addressed over all those years, and not hidden
away. And what about when a city spends money on a poor part of the city to
build it up? To build parks, things like that? Redo the streets & sidewalks?
The homeless shelters that are out there, that is liberal. The vans that go
around and pick up the elderly to take them shopping, another liberal idea. So
while I will agree that not all liberal ideas are good, for you to continue to
give the impression that liberal=bad, would clearly justify anyone else saying
conservative=bad (provided your impression is just that). But in reality, bith
would be baseless. Both have good and bad points. 

| Unfortunately, admitting error is not a part of this ideology, else
| these intelligent, free thinking individuals would have come clean by now.

	Steve, when you get serious, give me a call. But the above is pure
trash. 


Glen

    First off, Glen, my usage of the term liberal (as you should know by
    now) is a political one.
    
    Now, 
    
    >who is asking for more spending on social programs?  
    
    Is this a serious question?  If so, I recommend watching a good dose of
    C-Spam.  There are liberal Republicans, just as there are conservative
    Democrats.  This distinction crosses all party affiliation.  It is the
    liberal idealists in both parties that advocate spending more and more
    money on social programs.  The last "crime bill" that was passed
    created more social spending, when we can't even afford what we spend
    today.
    
    Who is asking for more and more spending?  See who voted against
    reducing the automatic colas on Medicare and Medicade from a ridiculous
    11% to a still high 6%.  This is not even a CUT, as normal people
    define the term inside the budgets they are forced to live within.  
    
    Look at who proposes what new bills and take a close look as to what is
    inside.  You can hide a lot in a bill hundreds of pages long.  
    
    All too many Congressfolk want more spending on social programs, some
    because of their hopelessly naive liberal ideology (good intentions,
    bad implementaion, about sums it up), others as a compromise to get
    their own pork/whatever written into the bill.
    
    It has to end.  I merely suggest we defederalize it so some real
    changes can occur.  It is obvious to me that the Congress is
    incapable of controlling their spendthrift ways.  I'm not suggesting
    cutting all spending on social programs instantly...but you KNEW that
    already.
    
    
    -steve

	Steve, that's not being liberal, that's the repubs have control, but
they won't give a line item veto to a dem president. It was the same way when
the dems were in control, and there was a repub president. 


Glen

    Eh?

 
I watched Alan Keyes speech at a forum in North Carolina last night.  'Tis
a shame that this man is not getting the coverage that the rest of the pack
are.  I hope he will be around for awhile, for he is a man who needs to
be heard not only in the Republican party, but in the nation as a whole.




Jim

    AMEN! AND AMEN!
    
    Yes I agree, I have read some of his speechs and found that he speaks
    with a much different SPIRIT. Not a political spirit but a SPIRIT of a
    converted and convicted man of GOD!
    
                                          all best in Christ ... Jack Perry
                                                                  

	Alan Keyes was excluded from a debate in South Carolina (CIPAC?).
It appears that he will be excluded from another debate in Atlanta,
Georgia.  This is strange, considering that he was the recognized winner
of the New Hampshire debate, and has consistently outshone the "top four"
in any debate setting.  Apparently, someone is deciding for us, who we
should and shouldn't hear.  Other candidates are also being excluded.
The "top four" are all strangely silent on the matter.

	Don't worry, Alan will hang in there (campaigning for the nomination,
and refocusing the other candidates on the moral crisis confronting this
nation) right up until the convention.  Money, coverage, polls and votes
do not motivate him.  Speaking the truth is what motivates him.

Subject: Speech at Aiken SC, Thursday
   From: [email protected]

This is the speech that Rush praised on Friday.

*************
Draft transcription by David Quackenbush
*************

Thank you!

God bless you!  Praise God indeed.

Thank you very much!

Well, I've got to tell you, it's good to be here.  And I appreciate the
opportunity to share some thoughts with all of you this evening about the
challenge that this country faces.  

Now I know I'm supposed to stand up here and talk to you about who you
support for president and all that.  And I guess the way it is often spoken
about it's supposed to be some kind of personal appeal.  But you know, it's
not.  

As citizens we are faced with a choice, in this election year, about what we
consider to be the most important priority of this nation's life.  And it is
only after we make that decision that we can in fact make an informed
decision about who ought to be our choice for president of the United States.
 Now I believe that, looking at the Clinton Administration, there can be no
real doubt anymore as to what the major challenge is that faces the United
States.  

But I'm afraid that Republicans are going to make a tremendous error this
year, if we are not very careful.  The American people are going to have to
understand what's wrong with Bill Clinton's America.  Give them the right
answer to that question, on that is in fact based on the real challenge that
this administration represents, and we will win the election in 1996.  Give
them a false answer to that question, one that does not reflect reality and
that runs from the real issues of the day, and don't fool yourselves:  we can
lose, because we are in fact, right this minute, losing.  

And you should be asking yourselves "why?"  How on earth have we come from a
situation, in 1994, when the Republicans captured the Congress and Bill
Clinton was just about as politically dead as anybody I've ever seen in
American politics?  And yet, I stand here today and you can read the papers,
and you can look at the polls, and you can see what all the pundits are
saying, and the Clinton Administration seems at the moment to be somebody's
version of that horror cult film "The Night of the Living Dead."  He's
walking around breathing, talking, just like he was a living real political
figure with a chance of re-election, and how did we get here?  

Well I'll tell you how I think we got here.  We got here on account of a
leadership that has presented the issues to the American people in the wrong
way, in a way that actually has Bill Clinton fighting on the strong ground of
class resentment that the Democrats have always used to put their coalition
back together.  You fight Bill Clinton on the grounds of more money, less
money; more government, less government; budgets and fiscal policy; and you
will get the defeat that you deserve.  Because when you ask the question:
 What's wrong with Bill Clinton's America?  that kind of an answer misses the
point entirely.  

Bill Clinton's America isn't just about what's going wrong with the economy,
because I'll tell you -- you can pray for it if you like, I never pray for
this country's ill.  So I pray every day that we will remain strong and
prosperous, that the economy will do well, that the people will have jobs.
 The mere fact that that might redound to Bill Clinton's credit doesn't
bother me in the least.  Because I know it's not to his credit.

If we do well in spite of the over-taxation, over-regulation, government
interference and government domination of this economy, it's not a tribute to
Bill Clinton.  It's a tribute to the intelligence and the creativity of the
American people.  They're the ones who make this economy work!

But it could be, it could be though, that if we go out and try to fight the
November election on those economic grounds, some politicians are going to
have to pray for rain. They're gonna have to hope that things look pretty
bleak.  And I will never want to hope that for the people of this country.  

I never want to stake my claim to any office, or any ambition, on the failure
and suffering of the American people.  And we don't have to!  Because what's
wrong with Bill Clinton's America goes way beyond anything you can talk about
with dollars and cents.  What's wrong with Bill Clinton's America is that he
represents the most anti-moral, anti-family administration in the history of
this country!  

From the moment . . . from the moment he came into office he could not wait,
didn't even wait till he was inaugurated before his pen moved to claim the
lives of innocent unborn children.  Could not act fast enough . . .. could
not act fast enough to implement the agenda of imposing - IMPOSING! - the
ideology of xxx-rights activists on the military people of this country, at
the expense of our security.  And even . . . and even later than that:  this
is a man who, even in the face of the shocked conscience and revulsion of
pro-abortionists in his OWN PARTY still dares to stand up and defend
partial-birth torture murders of the unborn.  

If you want to defeat Bill Clinton, then you better remind America of exactly
what he is and what he stands for.  An America with families weakened by
government expansion, an America where the promotion of a licentious and
corrupt concept of freedom breaks DOWN the moral discipline that our children
need in order to succeed.  An America where Jocylen Elders was appointed to
tell our kids to do in the back seat what they shouldn't do in the front
seat, the bedroom, the living room, or ANY room at their age!

You see, I think it's gonna be very easy to defeat Bill Clinton, if we take
the issues to the American people in the right way, if we base them on what
is objectively the truth about this country's circumstances.  And no matter
how much we try to make it up right now -- there's anxiety out there about
the economy, people worried about whether they'll have jobs and so forth.
 But you know, we really have to worry about our obsession with material
things.  

We are trying right now to fill up, with all these materialistic
preoccupations, a moral and spiritual void that cannot be filled by them.
 And as we encounter more and more -- it doesn't matter how much success we
have as a people, we'll never be satisfied if we don't rediscover the moral
foundations and moral anchors that are in fact the real foundation of our
liberty.  

And that is the real crisis that we're facing in America, the crisis of
younger generations out on the streets murdering and raping and prostituting
and taking drugs with an intensity and at a rate unprecedented in the history
of the country.  If we look at what is going on with new generations of
Americans we can see a mirror held up to us in which we can read the face of
our future.  And I'll tell you that the future looks pretty grim, as the
intensified crime and violence and lack of discipline and guidance and sense
of moral priorities that is now reflected in this society continues.  

When are we gonna face the truth?  I said it at the beginning of this
campaign, I say it now, I will say it throughout the campaign, and I will
bring it to every platform no matter what effort it takes:  We don't just
have money problems, we have moral problems!  And we had better address those
problems NOW!  as our TOP PRIORITY!  or we WILL NOT RECOVER!  

You know, there are some platforms on which they'd rather I didn't say it,
because you start talking that way and people might think that it's important
to make it our top priority to restore the moral and material foundations of
decent family life; they might think that it was a real crisis that the
illegitimacy rate in this country is now over 30%; they might think it was a
desperate and disastrous crisis that in certain communities there are 65% and
67% of the children growing up in single parent households without the
stability of a marriage-based, two-parent family; they might look at the
statistics that tell us that every major problem we have -- the crime, the
mis-education, the poverty -- the major contributing factor in ALL of these
things it the breakdown of family life, and they might have to admit that the
breakdown of our family system is NOT due to economic causes.  The Great
Depression did not cause the breakdown of our family system, no economic
downturn ever caused the breakdown of our family system, no loss of jobs, no
degree of poverty has ever caused the breakdown of our family system!  

It is the loss of the heart, the discipline, the right understanding of love
and commitment and obligation, that is destroying our family life!

And I know it's real popular for folks to tell me "well that's all well and
good, but what does it have to do with running for president?"  What are they
talking about?

I have lived in this country -- I think y'all have too -- for a while now.
 You look at the years since 1960 and you tell me that the family-destroying
welfare system isn't what accounts for the breakdown of the family among the
poor.  You tell me that a burdensome income tax system that more and more
robs the surplus of working and middle-class families in this country isn't
contributing to the breakdown of the family system.  You tell me that an
NEA-dominated, Planned Parenthood-dominated approach to education in our
schools isn't a direct assault on the moral character that our young people
need to sustain family life.  

I think, unfortunately, it's becoming altogether too popular in the
Republican Party and in conservative circles for people to start practicing
covert socialism.  By that I mean these arguments that imply that we are the
victims and the government is the answer.  And people have their ways around
it, and so forth and so on.  You know, you range all the way from the Bill
Clinton style socialists all the way over to the Pat Buchanan style
socialists.  

I know, upset everybody.  But don't tell me that you present an argument that
says we've all been victimized by foreign bogeymen, and government
protectionism will solve the problem. Anytime you tell me that the government
is the answer, you've told me a socialist lie!  The government is not the
answer!  Not protectionist socialism, and not Bill Clinton socialism!

I'm gonna stick . . . I am going to stick with the true conservative agenda,
that sees the destruction that government has wrought, and that knows that
our priority in politics is to stop the damage that government is doing,
break up the power concentrated in the government's hands, and return it to
the people of this country, return the welfare system to the control and
administration of churches and grassroots-based institutions that can address
the moral dimension of helping people restore their lives, return the schools
to the control of parents, who can in fact restore the tie between home and
school, between education and character formation, and take their children
back from those who are distorting their values and destroying their moral
judgment.

And finally, I'll tell ya':  for all you folks out their wearing Forbes
buttons, don't fool yourselves:  kids are not joining gangs these days
because they have to pay a progressive income tax.  And we are not going to
solve the problem by following a flat tax approach that just lets the
government have a certain percentage.  Because that preemptive claim to a
percentage of our income is what has all these people talking like it's their
money. Because after all, if you have an income tax that gives the government
a preemptive claim to a certain percentage of your paycheck . . . who decides
the percentage?  They do!  Have you noticed that?  What stops them from
setting it at a hundred percent?  Theoretically nothing at all.  That means
that every cent that you take home is an allowance from the government.  

That's probably why the other day on stage Steve Forbes slipped into the
parlance of talking just like 'em.  You know:  "Well, the flat tax is great
because it will ALLOW people to keep more of their money."  What is this?
 This language doesn't bother you? When people start talking about "allowing"
you to keep what is your own?  That ought to tell you, that we are living
under a system that treats us not as a free people, but as tax slaves and tax
serfs -- the wage slaves of the government.  

And I think the only way, the only way that we can end that serfdom is to
follow Bill Archer and others in the Congress and leadership of the United
States who have the courage to stand up and admit:  The RATE is not the
problem!  The STRUCTURE is not the problem!  The TAX ITSELF IS THE PROBLEM!
 ABOLISH THE INCOME TAX AND  RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION OF FREEDOM under which
this country was founded!

If we return to the original principles this nation was based on, we will
understand that this was not a country that was supposed to be about
government:  not about good government, not about big government, not about
expanding government.  This is a country that's supposed to be about
self-government -- government of the people, by the people, for the people --
founded in that great principle the Founders set forth in the beginning:  We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.  

But (if) you take those principles seriously, they not only talk about your
rights -- they talk about the source of those rights in the will, power and
authority of God.  And if we acknowledge that will, power and authority then
we must acknowledge that our freedom is limited and constrained by our
responsibility before God.  There is no licentious right to do as we please.
 There is only a right to respect His will and the choice He has made to
grant us human life and human dignity, and a country that can be free and
prosperous and great if we respect that grant from God in one another, in all
of us, whether in the womb or in the world, whatever our background, color or
creed.

That, I believe, is the great unifying principle of this great American
people.  And if we speak from the heart of that principle, to the heart of
the American people, we will carry forward the cause of conservatism -- not
with the voice of culture war, but with the voice of moral healing that will
unite all Americans again behind the conservative leadership that will lay
the solid foundation for America's hope and liberty and prosperity in the
millennium to come. 

Thank you very much.

	FYI, Alan Keyes was arrested and taken into police custody in
handcuffs this evening, after he attempted to enter the studios of
WSB-TV in Atlanta, Georgia, to participate in a presidential debate
to which he had been specifically dis-invited.  The station says that
they are not pressing charges.  However, Alan's whereabouts were not
known at the last report I heard on the radio.  This was the top story
on more than one national radio news program.

>The station says that they are not pressing charges.

The station doesn't have to.

Just like the mall didn't have to when I was arrested with the Mikado sign.

If he was arrested for trespassing, it's now out of the station's hands,
just like it was out of the mall's hands.

/john

 He was not arrested.  The police "removed" him and released him at a local
  park.




 JIm

    Hmmm, does anyone know where he is, then?  I'd say getting handcuffed
    is pretty much getting arrested, wouldn't you?

 I don't know where he is.  I had just heard the report last night that
 he was not arrested.  The TV station just wanted him removed from the
 property.




 Jim

    NBC news interviewed Alan this morning.  He was right on, as usual.
    CBS/ABC had apparently taped interviews, but I did not see them aired.
    Most news outlets reported that he had been arrested.  It was also
    reported that the Secret Service may have asked the Atlanta police to
    remove him.
    
    Another irony is that Ambassador Keyes had received a formal invitation
    to the debate from its organizers, which was never withdrawn.  The
    station (WSB-TV) made the decision to dis-invite him, even though Bob
    Dole had declined to attend, leaving a spot open.
    
    To their credit, both Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes said during the
    debate that they thought Alan Keyes should have been allowed to
    participate.  I don't know about Lamar Alexander.
    
    This is overt tampering (on the part of WSB-TV) with the electoral
    process, and a direct violation of federal law, which states that
    the media are to maintain a position of neutrality with regard to
    the candidates, *not* selectively muzzling some.  The integrity of
    the process is in jeopardy.  I have also almost totally lost my respect
    for the top Republican leadership (Halley Barbour in particular), since
    they have not argued for opening these debates to all candidates.

    Why is everyone so vehement in keeping Keyes out of these debates?  If
    he's such a nobody, why was he specifically dis-invited?

>    Why is everyone so vehement in keeping Keyes out of these debates?  If
>    he's such a nobody, why was he specifically dis-invited?


     Because he speaks the truth about what the real problem is in this
     country.




Jim

	If Keys were the repub nominee, I'd give him serious consideration. He
says a lot of things that I like. 


Glen

 Keyes.



 

    America: it's ALMOST a free country!

I got the following forwarded to me by a friend:

>Invocation to the Kansas State Legislature
>by Pastor Joe Wright of Wichita Central Christian Church
>Transcribed from the Paul Harvey broadcast, February 10, 1996
>
>   Heavenly Father we come before you today to ask your forgiveness
>and to seek your direction and guidance.  We know your Word says woe
>to those who call evil good, but that's exactly what we have done.
>
>   We've lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values.
>
>   We confess that we have ridiculed the absolute truth of your Word in
>the name of moral pluralism.
>
>   We have worshipped other gods and called it "multiculturalism."
>
>   We have endorsed perversion and called it "an alternative lifestyle."
>
>   We have exploited the poor and called it "a lottery."
>
>   We have neglected the needy and called it "self-preservation."
>
>   We have rewarded laziness and called it "welfare."
>
>   In the name of choice we have killed our unborn.
>
>   In the name of right-to-life we have killed abortionists.
>
>   We have neglected to discipline our children and called it "building
>esteem."
>
>   We have abused power and called it "political savvy."
>
>   We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it "taxes."
>
>   We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it
>"freedom of expression."
>
>   We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and
>called it "enlightenment."
>
>   Search us, O God, and know our hearts today.  Try us and show us any
>wicked in us.  Cleanse us from every sin and set us free.  Guide and
>bless these men and women who have been sent here by the people of
>Kansas and who have been ordained by You to govern this great state.
>Grant them your wisdom to rule and may their decisions direct us to the
>center of your will.  I ask it in the name of your Son, the Living
>Savior, Jesus Christ.  Amen.

It would seem that Lord has indeed left us a few prophets in the land,
wouldn't you agree?

	KeyEs (thanks, Jim) said this morning that he was going to look into a
suit against the station, and if memory serves me correct (I was trying to rush
out the door for work), he said he might sue some part of the republican party
because they did not try and get it changed. I hope he does. While I think
there are a lot of candiates who don't have a chnce of winning, it does not
mean that they shouldn't be heard. I mean, Mike Dukaukus (sp?) was one who I
never thought had a chance to win the dems nomination......


Glen

 amen, indeed.

    
    >>    America: it's ALMOST a free country!
    
    And if I disagree I get thrown in jail? ;')

Subject: KEYES: Media Dictatorship
   From: [email protected]

Alan Keyes:  Media Dictatorship -- 
                   A Corruption of the Political Process

CNBC BUSINESS INSIDERS
March 4, 1996
----------------------------------------
 Transcript by Kristin R. Kazyak

NEIL CAVUTO:  A not too pleased Alan Keyes literally forced out of a Georgia
debate last night, the invitation on the event included supposedly more
established candidates like Pat Buchanan, Lamar Alexander and Steve Forbes.
 Bob Dole was a no show.  But the timing, the place and, indeed, the
situation, could *hardly* have been worse.

Snubbing one of the few prominent African-American Republicans out there,
didn't then, and doesn't now sit well for the "Grand Ol' Party," now looking
more like a grand ol' mess.

Good Evening everybody and welcome to Business Insiders.  I'm Neil Cavuto.

Never mind the fact that other presidential wanabees, including Richard
Lugar were snubbed at last night's debate.  As Keyes himself reminded 
people, the image of a prominent black leader, being whisked off in  
handcuffs, in the home of Martin Luther King, did NOT look good.

How's he feeling now?  Well, joining us from Atlanta, Alan Keyes himself.
Good to see you Mr. Keyes.

ALAN KEYES:  Good to see you.  Let me clarify one thing.  We had an
invitation to that debate issued in January of 1996, and then withdrawn only
within the last couple of days, because the press association in Atlanta
which had sponsored it was pushed out.  They wanted me to come and WSB-TV
took over.  So this really wasn't the Republican Party.  It was a **media**
outlet trying to *dictate* the terms on which the election in Georgia would
be held.

CAVUTO:  Well we will get to the bottom of that.  I do want to introduce, if
you don't mind, Mr. Keyes, some of my friends and colleagues here, who'll
join me in the questioning including the chief economist of Business Week
and CNBC, Bill Wolman, and economics columnist, Kathleen Hayes.  Now back 
to you Mr. Keyes.

Be that as it may, it did not look good for the Republican Party, no matter
whose fault it was to have the spectacle of you being dragged out in
handcuffs in the home of Martin Luther King.  On that value alone, do you
think it was a bad night for the Republicans?

KEYES:  Well, I actually don't.  I think it was a bad night for the media,
to tell you the truth, because I don't think anyone in the country mistakes 
who was responsible for this.  The owners of that station decided that they 
were going to do something they don't even, under the law, have the right 
to do 

CAVUTO <trying to interrupt>:  Then why didn't you -- wouldn't you have
preferred to see -- 

KEYES:  and I went there to talk to them and to tell them they were
*legally* wrong.  It is a violation of FCC regulations for a *media outlet* 
to have a debate *barring* candidates that close to an election.

CAVUTO <trying to interrupt>:  Weren't you upset that these guys did not --

KEYES:  It's explicit in the law.

CAVUTO:  hold on -- they did not, you're colleagues did *not* opt out of the
debate.  It was  Ronald Reagan who said to George Bush in the 1980 debate:
 "I paid for this microphone, I have every reason to be here and have them
here."  Now, now --

KEYES:  There are no -- 

CAVUTO:  Couldn't you say the same?

KEYES:  There are no Reagans running in this race among my opponents.  We
know this.  So I don't expect them to act like Ronald Reagan.  They are not
of his stature, nobody, really, I think, would joke and say that they are.
So I certainly didn't expect *them* to behave as he would have behaved.  I
also do not expect that WSB-TV and the media outlet is going to be allowed,
in violation of FCC regulations, to wrest control of the debate from a
legitimate community organization that wanted my presence, then dictate that
I will not be there so that the people of Georgia will not be able to hear
my message.

This media dictatorship is a corruption of the political process.

KATHLEEN HAYES:  Mr. Keyes?

KEYES:  And that's what's at issue here.

HAYES:   Mr. Keyes?  Why did it happen?  Did it happen because you have
strong views against abortion?  Did it happen because --

KEYES:  No, no, no.

HAYES:  -- you're African-American?  Did it happen because you're one of the
people whose garnered the least votes so far?  Why did it happen?

KEYES:  I think that there was no excuse for this whatsoever.  They said
they
wanted to have fewer candidates so there'd be a better debate, and I was the
best debater, have been judged so in every single debate and forum where
we've appeared together.  They even had an empty chair so they couldn't say
it was numbers.  All the excuses they gave failed. 

They didn't want *me* in that studio.  And I think it's because the
Democrats
who control that station know that the greatest threat to Bill Clinton is
Alan Keyes, and if people in the South and around the country hear my
message
and know I'm running, that is going to *lead* to my nomination, and that's
the one thing he's not going to be able to handle.

The rest of these candidates he can beat.  Me?  The minute I am nominated,
history is made, and the Democrat coalition is shaken / to / its / roots,
and
they know it.

BILL WOLMAN:  But Mr. Keyes, what does this do to the Big Tent Theory of the
Republican Party?

KEYES:  It has nothing to do with 

WOLMAN <interrupting>:  Don't you think that --

KEYES:  the Republican Party.  The Republican Party was not at fault here.
 Don't try to deflect from the fact that **a media tyranny has censored this
process, and that that tyranny became overt last night.**  THAT'S what
happened last night.  The Republican Party wasn't responsible for my
exclusion.  WSB --

CAVUTO <interrupting>:  How can you say that --

KEYES <continues>:  WSB-TV was responsible --

WOLMAN:  But nobody rushed to your defense, Mr. Keyes.  

KEYES:  OK?

WOLMAN:  Nobody rushed to your defense.

KEYES:  Rushing to my defense wouldn't have changed it.  People *DID*
contact these folks.  And the State Party Chairman *DID* contact them and 
they *refused* to budge.  This was a decision made by the Cox Communication
people, by the management of that station, they are the ones who exerted
this *despotism,* this tyranny which, under the law, by the way, is a 
violation of their license, and we're going to file a complaint, we're 
going to sue them, they *EXPLICITLY* violated the law last night and we're 
going to make them be accountable for that violation.

You and I both know that what they did last night, no media outlet is
allowed to do.

CAVUTO:  All right, your debate, and your debating skills not withstanding,
you're still running poorly in the polls, as Kathleen pointed out.  Are you
going to quit this race soon?

KEYES:  I certainly am not.  I'm running poorly, if I'm running poorly in
the polls, because of the media censorship.  Because media outlets like this
have refused to cover *bona fide* news events where hundreds, even 
thousands, of Keyes supporters have turned out.  They've tried to create 
the impression this campaign has no support, WHICH IS A LIE, and that is 
*entirely* the result of media censorship, which is what was going on last 
night 

CAVUTO:  OK.

KEYES:  and which is what is wrong.  It's *destroying* the integrity of this
process.

CAVUTO:  All right, we'll see what happens, Mr. Keyes.  In the meantime,
best of luck to you and fun having you on the show.  Thank you.

KEYES:  Thank you.

CAVUTO:  Alan Keyes, Republican presidential candidate joining us out of
Atlanta.
-------------------------------
Online distribution
Kristin R. Kazyak

    re: back a few
    imho The reason Alan Keyes has not gotten press of votes is that he
    raises the moral issue as a cause for USofA's woes.  Nobody wants to
    hear that the low moral standard is the cause of the problems in the
    US.
    
    Kenley

    
    	Kenley, Pat Buchanan does that too, but he gets press. Maybe it's
because Keyes talks realistically about problems, where Buchanan uses scare
tactics. (ie...extremist gets heard, reality does not) Just a thought.

    re: -1
    Good point.

Alan Keyes:  The Platform That's Going to Defeat Bill Clinton

The Michael Reagan Talk Show
March 6, 1996
-----------------------------------------
  Transcript by Kristin R. Kazyak

REAGAN:  ... The biggest news coming out of the weekend is Alan Keyes in
Atlanta.  He said -- This is not fair to the campaign.  It's not fair to all
the people who have worked their hearts out to put me on the ballot all over
the country.  And it's not fair to the American people who deserve to choose
their own presidential candidate from the full range of contenders.

Well, Alan Keyes has been a friend for many, many years, and I don't know if
he'll take up Steve Forbes who said he certainly seriously would consider him
to chair the Republican National Committee.  Right now he would like to sit
in a chair at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, preferably one in the Oval Office;
did not do well today on Junior Tuesday but he is getting his message out and
joins me on the Michael Reagan Talk Show.  

REAGAN:  Alan Keyes, how are you, Sir?!

KEYES:  I'm doing alright.  How are you?

REAGAN:  I am doing fine.  I, like everybody else, saw you over the weekend,
being handcuffed, taken away from WSB, the studios at WSB.  Tell me a little
bit of the history, because some of the news that came out said (A) you were
invited then uninvited, then other news came out and said you weren't invited
at all -- that you invited yourself.  How did that all come about?

KEYES:  Oh, we got an invitation to the debate in January of this year, and
then in the last days before the debate, this WSB station somehow wrested
control away from the original sponsors, then tried this exclusionary thing
which, by the way, this television station, as sponsor, did not have the
right to do, because *legally* they are *barred* from doing it that close to
an election.

There's explicit language in the FEC code that bars media outlets from having
exclusionary debates that close to an election, when there's no longer *any*
opportunity to offer equal quality time.

So, the station was doing an *illegal* thing, and then proceeded to
manipulate the Atlanta police into having them detain me in an *illegal*
fashion, so the whole episode has become a big black eye for *them,* but it's
also a good illustration of the media *tyranny* that has delegitimized this
whole election process, since from the very beginning, media centers like the
station in Atlanta have been *refusing* to cover my campaign, and indeed, I
think they're deathly afraid of what I represent.

Bob Dole is going to go out there and get beaten to a pulp by Bill Clinton.
 Alan Keyes would go out there and the *minute* I got the nomination, Bill
Clinton would be finished.

REAGAN:  Let me ask you a question.  Why do you think your message has not
grasped America, when you look at today, in the primaries that are taking
place you're getting 2, 3, 4, 5%.

KEYES:  My message *does* grasp America.  America hasn't heard my message,
Michael Reagan, and you know it.  The people who *have* heard it *have* been
grabbed by it.  And they're the people who have put this campaign together
around the country.  But the great majority of Americans have never heard it,
and they didn't hear it because the media censored me, just as this station
in Atlanta went to *extreme* lengths to make sure that my voice was not heard
by the people of Georgia.

REAGAN:  Why do you believe your voice is not being heard?  Why do you think
the media is doing that?  Pretending -- well, not pretending, because they're
very up front about it -- that you are just a non-player.  You're out of the
system.

KEYES:  Well, I think, because, first of all, I'm clearly *not* a non-player.
 Everybody who watches the debates and presentations is won over to the
message that I present.  That's step number one.  Including, of course,
people who watched the debate before New Hampshire, where I was
overwhelmingly judged by all the polls and surveys I saw to have presented
the best case in that debate.

And so the strength and power of the message is quite clear, and I think
that's what strikes fear into the hearts of the liberal-dominated media.  I
am the kind of person they can not refute, cannot deal with, cannot
**caricature,** cannot belittle, can't call names and dismiss, and so they
can't deal with me.  What do you do with somebody like that who poses a
threat to your power and the position that you take?  You ignore him.  You
try to make sure nobody hears that message, and that *is* the only way to
stop me.

REAGAN:  Somebody asked me on the show yesterday, if you had Secret Service
protection?  Do you?

KEYES:  No, I do not.

REAGAN:  Ah, Pat Buchanan does.  Who does and who does not in the campaign?

KEYES:  Well, you would have to ask -- I guess the Treasury Department
ultimately makes that decision.  I really don't know.

REAGAN:  Actually, it's the President of the United States who can request
the Treasury to give protective service to candidates who are out there.  I
was wondering if, indeed, you were the only candidate that did not have
Secret Service Protection?

KEYES:  Well, I don't know that I'm the *only* one.  No, I wouldn't say that.
 But you'd have to check -- I haven't checked into that because, to tell you
the honest truth, I don't wake up in the morning wishing for Secret Service
protection.  I have noted people who have it and it's a pain in the neck.
<Alan laughing>

REAGAN:  Listen Alan, anytime you feel like having it give me a call --
<Alan laughing>

Let me tell you, it's a little bit lower than the neck!

KEYES:  Oh, it's a little bit lower!  Well, I'm trying to be polite, Mike!

REAGAN:  Listen, I was with someone when this whole thing was going down in
Atlanta with you, watching you being taken away in handcuffs.  And the person
I was with said to me: "It's because he's Black."

KEYES:  That is not true.  At least, it's not true in the sense they meant
it.  It is not because I'm Black in the sense that there's some racial
prejudice,

REAGAN:  Ahmm huh --

KEYES:  or anti-Black prejudice involved.  In an *analytical* sense, the fact
that I'm Black does have something to do with it, because it's the
combination of conservative, Black, Republican, Christian, that the media
*cannot* stomach -- media tyrants like these people at WSB.  And I say
"tyrants" because the people who own this station are well known in Atlanta
as strong, pro-Clinton Democrats, right?  

And clearly, their thought, I think, is you first of all can't allow the
Republican Party to project in the South an image that says: "Here is this
Black guy, competing equally with all the other Republicans for leadership."
 That sends a message to Black Democrats they don't want them to hear,
because it refutes the lies they tell about the Republican Party right there.

So, I think *their* aim was to try to create an episode that would somehow
give the *Republicans* a black eye, "Oh, the Republicans are rotten, they
won't let this guy in," but as it turned out, it wasn't anything to do with
the Party.  Indeed the *Party* leaders were willing to have me at the debate,
asked to have me at the debate, the original sponsoring association asked to
have me at the debate, and it was this media outlet and its Democrat bosses
who were the ones who excluded me.  

That must be very embarrassing, but the *TRUTH* is out.

*THESE* are the people who are destroying the integrity of our political
process.  Not the Republican Party, not the Republican leadership, not the
Republican candidates, but the *media tyrants* who have been *censoring* the
political process over the *whole* course of this last year and a-half.

REAGAN:  What I thought, as I turned to the person who said: "It's because
he's Black", the first thing I thought of was 1980 in a place called Nashua,
New Hampshire -- where Ronald Reagan grabbed the microphone and said "I'm
paying for this microphone," and that was when George Bush wanted to just
have a one-on-one debate with Ronald Reagan.  Ronald Reagan wanted to invite
*all* of the candidates in and, in fact, would not debate unless all of them
were there.  And I guess I was waiting for one of those three that were
debating, even though they were mentioning that you were outside the door, to
stand up and say, 

KEYES:  Oh Mike!  Mike, Mike --

REAGAN:  "Hey!  We want us *all* here!"

KEYES:  You're joking!  First of all, there are no "Reagans" running in this
field.

REAGAN:  Hee, hee!

KEYES:  You know this don't you?!

REAGAN:  I know this.

KEYES:  There's nobody like your father in *this* bunch.  So we'll put that
aside.  We know this.  Second, Lamar Alexander passed me by, going through
the door.  You know, I called to him, greeted him, he wouldn't even come by
-- one of my aides followed him and said: "Why won't you go say a word of
support for Alan?"  He said: "**I** have an invitation. *He* doesn't."  That
was his response.  Typical, sneer-down-your-nose elitist kind of cowardice:
"**I** belong to this country club. *He* doesn't."  You understand?  That is
the attitude that has killed the Republican Party at the grassroots for
decades.

REAGAN:  Alan, let me take a break and come back to you, and see if it can be
rebuilt in time to win an election in November.  I'm Mike Reagan.  He's Alan
Keyes.  We'll be back right after these messages.

------------------ continued on [2]

REAGAN:  We're back everybody.  It's 15 minutes before the hour.  Mike Reagan
here.  You're there.  We're visiting with Presidential candidate, Alan Keyes.
 He's on the hotline check.  Where are you at, Alan?

KEYES:  Right now I'm at home in Maryland.  I voted today.

REAGAN:  You voted today.  Where does Alan Keyes go from here?

KEYES:  Oh, I think my immediate future has me in Texas, and then in, I
think, California, then in Florida, Michigan, Illinois -- all kinds of
places.

REAGAN:  OK!  How long can Alan Keyes keep going at 2 and 5%?

KEYES:  Oh, I can keep going throughout this whole campaign, just as I said
from the beginning.  This is not one of those media-created, money-created
campaigns.  This campaign is created by *people* at the grassroots who have
the heart to organize the campaign, get me on the ballot, organize the events
and so forth and so on, and that is what makes the campaign happen.

REAGAN:  At the same time, I understand what you're saying, but at the same
time, you and I both know, it takes money, being able to buy the radio ads,
the television ads to get your face in front of the public.

KEYES:  Oh, see -- but that's exactly what I haven't done.  So far I think
with the exception of a few in Iowa, we haven't had any television or radio
ads on this campaign.

REAGAN:  But that doesn't work in today's society.  People get their
information, wrong as it might be, they get it from that 21 inch peep hole
into paradise or by turning a little dial on the radio.

KEYES:  Some people do, some people don't.  I think that's partly true, and
partly not.  We've put together a grassroots effort that has gotten the word
out at the grassroots, certainly sufficient to sustain the campaign effort
and organization, get people coming out to work on the campaign, and so
forth.

I think if I were getting a fair break in terms of media coverage, this
message would be getting out to people.

REAGAN:  So what does Bob Dole do from here?  Bob Dole, for all intents and
purposes with Jr. Tuesday, and in New York a couple of days from now, and
then Super Tuesday happening next Tuesday, probably is in a *fait accomplit*
wrapping up the nomination.

KEYES:  Not necessarily --

REAGAN:  What does Bob Dole need to do?

KEYES:  Not necessarily.  It's what the people who are supporting Pat
Buchanan need to do.  And *they* need to switch to Alan Keyes -- if they
*really* want to see a moral conservative beat Bob Dole, then they need to
switch.  Pat is going no further than he has gone already.  And
unfortunately, *exactly* as I predicted it sometime back, the ability of the
media, they *had* his number, they *have* his number, they know how to deal
with him, and he leads with his chin every time, in terms of his *caricature*
of conservatism.  

And so there's a natural limit, and there are people out there who believe in
a lot of what he's saying, who are voting for Bob Dole right now.  Moral
conservatives, Christian conservatives, pro-life conservatives.  Why?
 Because they're not going to support somebody who wraps himself in the
Confederate flag.

And you say: "Oh Alan, you're being unfair."   No I'm not.  I'm not saying
Pat *means* anything bad by that.  Probably in his heart, he doesn't.  But
when you do stuff like that, you set yourself up and they're going to go
after you.  So if you hand them the sword, why should you be surprised that
they use it?  And he does it all the time.  He did it in this dinner I was at
at the American Conservative Union, telling this joke about how Mitchell
didn't want to work with Hopi Indians.  You know, why do you want to tell
jokes that give the impression that conservatives dislike *this* group, or
don't want to work with *that* group, and therefore can be accused of some
kind of ethnic prejudice we *don't* feel, and that the people we represent
don't feel?

You know, he does this and sets himself up; they smack him down.  He does it,
he sets himself up, they slash him up, you know, and with the result that
some people who agree with him don't want to be identified with him.  There's
a natural limit to how much he can accomplish.  He's reached that limit, and
now we're going to be stuck with Bob Dole if people don't start to *wake* up
and between now and then realize, if I were getting the votes that he is
getting, all the people that say that **I** have the message they believe in
their heart, we would be beating Bob Dole right now.  Because there is **no**
way that he can stop me.

REAGAN:  Well, but if you look at what is going on with today's votes and you
look at Connecticut 54%, Maine 45% and you took Pat Buchanan's and added it
to Alan Keyes' that *still* wouldn't give enough votes for the percentage.

KEYES:  There are people who have voted for Bob Dole who believe my message
and aren't voting for me because they think I can't win.  If I had gotten Pat
Buchanan's votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, they'd think I could win and I'd
have theirs.  I'd be beating Bob Dole right now.

REAGAN:  What would you say to Pat Buchanan though?  Buchanan would say if
Alan Keyes would just get out of here for a little bit, I could get his
support.

KEYES:  That's not true.  He's had his shot.  My little 2% -- that little
argument you just made **does** hold true for him.  If he could get those
votes from *Dole* he would be getting them.  He *can't* get them, you know,
and my little 2% down there isn't because my message doesn't carry.  It's
because so many people are walking around with this stupid idea: "He can't
win, he can't win."  No.  You solve that problem and **I** will take those
votes and get to a majority.  The problem is that moral conservatives,
Christian conservatives, pro-life conservatives have **thrown** their vote
away on Pat Buchanan when he could get so far and no farther, leading with
his chin on a whole bunch of issues that allow people to slash and burn and
basically have us in the shadow of those old accusations about racism and
ethnocentricity, religious bigotry and all this.  We don't need this, Mike,
and it's a baggage we **didn't** have to carry.

REAGAN:  You ended up getting probably more publicity out of *not* being at
that debate than if you had been at the debate.

KEYES:  Well, in some respects I think that's true.  Unfortunately, it came
at the expense of a bad image for the American political process, but I think
the **good** that can come out of this isn't good for me, it's really *good*
if people wake up and realize what was going on there with this station, this
media tyranny, exercised by the liberal media *against* people like myself
and other conservatives, this is *destroying* the integrity of the political
process.  I wish Americans would wake up and realize what these media bosses
are doing that's undermining the *real* choices that we have in the electoral
process.

REAGAN:  When the picture of Alan Keyes comes across the screen being taken
away in handcuffs, how do you answer the people out there that you're trying
to get the votes from, they're maybe voting for Bob Dole, that you aren't a
president who may at some point when you can't get your way try the same
tactics?

KEYES:  What tactic is that?  I didn't do anything.

REAGAN:  I realize -- I understand, I understand what you're saying --

KEYES:  Excuse me.  All I did was stick to my guns.  I sincerely hope they
want a president that sticks to his guns, stands up for what is right, and
has the **guts** to face down tyrants and despots when they try to trample on
the rights of free people.  I *hope* they want a president like that!
 Because I sure do!

REAGAN:  Alright.  Will you finish out the hour with me?

KEYES:  I will indeed.  I love being with you, you know that!
<laughing together>

REAGAN:  Presidential candidate, Alan Keyes, on the Michael Reagan Talk Show.
 We'll be right back right after these messages.

------------------

REAGAN:  Yeah, we're back 5 minutes before the hour.  Michael Reagan here,
you're there... we're talking to Presidential candidate, Alan Keyes, on the
Michael Reagan Talk Show.  Alan, you still with me?

KEYES:  Yes, I am.

REAGAN:  No matter who the candidate might be coming out of August in San
Diego, let's say at this point it could be anybody.  How does that anybody,
then unify the Party to run against a Bill Clinton in 1996?

KEYES:  You know, I think it kind of depends.  If, if you have a message that
is really moving the hearts of Republican grassroots people, then it's going
to be very easy.  If you don't, then I think it's going to be kind of
difficult to really stir people up.

Bill Clinton's negatives will, to a certain extent, unify people, but those
are precisely the things that are being neglected by *all* of the candidates
running except me.

They're trying to do this economic thing.  They're going to go out and try to
pretend that Bill Clinton has brought this economy to ruin or something, and
this is not true, Mike, and we can try it all we like but you *can't* win a
campaign on something that's not true.  The economy's not in such great
shape.  It's not in such bad shape.  It's just kind of chugging along.  If
you go out and try to turn it into the Great Depression, in order to defeat
Bill Clinton, everybody is going to know you're just lying, and it will be
politics as usual, and I don't think we'll get anywhere.

The *real* vulnerability of this Administration is not it's *economic*
policy, it's the *policies* that have affected the *moral* values, the
*family institutions*.  This is the most anti-moral, anti-family
Administration in the history of the country, and this Administration has
been *systematically* pursuing the goals of the politically-correct left to
destroy and undermine the family, destroy the marriage-based family, the
concept of motherhood, respect for fatherhood in all different kinds of ways,
assaulting sexual responsibility *in* the schools through condom distribution
and other things, promoting xxxx in the military.  I mean, you name it, they
have done it, in terms of *destroying* the family and that then has the
**practical** consequence of feeding *every* major problem that results from
family collapse.

*THAT* is the platform that is going to defeat Bill Clinton.

REAGAN:  If Alan Keyes is not the nominee of the Party, can Alan Keyes get
behind whoever that nominee might be?

KEYES:  Well, you know, this will depend also -- I think a lot of those
things are going to be decided in the way the platform is handled and so
forth.  You know, we are Republicans, we're going to get together and talk
these things out, and I think we're going to come out with a principled,
Republican Party platform that I hope, certainly, will include a principled
dedication to the pro-life issue, undiluted from our dedication in the last
couple of decades, that then will *unite* people who insist that the
Republican Party stand for principle.  That's the first prerequisite.  That
second, is going to include a recognition of the moral priority this nation
needs to address, and that in *that* context we'll deal with the economic
agenda of returning power to the grassroots people of the country.

I think we can unite on that!

REAGAN:  Alan, we're out of time but I ask you one quick question from Ken,
our board op, --

KEYES:  Yes?

REAGAN:  -- the engineer of the show --

Do you want *all* of Pat Buchanan's supporters?

KEYES:  I may not want *all* of them, but it seems to me a lot of the
*pro-life Christians* need to rethink what they are doing.

REAGAN:  You take care, Alan, thanks for spending time with me.

KEYES:  OK.  Bye bye.

REAGAN:  You take care.  Presidential candidate, Alan Keyes, still out there
in the hustings all the way to San Diego.  I'm Mike Reagan.  This is the
Michael Reagan Talk Show.

--------------------------
Online distribution
Kristin R. Kazyak

Subject: The Rules of "Follow the Leader"
   From: [email protected]

Thesis:  Follow the Leader is a simple game, with simple rules.  Played
rightly, it enobles the follower.
************

I would like to make a general comment in response to the various messages
that have been posted on such questions as the V.P. slot, support for Senator
Dole, the pro-life movement and its future in the Republican Party, etc.
 Some people have posted their advice to Ambassador Keyes, others have
announced their intentions -- either to work for Senator Dole or not, for
example.  What I find striking is that few or no messages have expressed an
intention to WAIT AND SEE WHAT OUR POLITICAL LEADER DOES, ASSUME THAT IT IS
WISE, AND FOLLOW IT. 

It is extremely difficult to know how to act in such a complicated political
moment as we are in.  It is extremely difficult to act practically,  i.e.,
politically, and remain absolutely committed to universal principles of
justice.  The whole point in HAVING someone like Keyes to support is that we
think he is the wisest and most prudent man we know in precisely this matter:
 understanding how to carry out the struggle for principle in the confusing
and discouraging cloud of half-truths and smooth-talkers and well-meaning
fools and self-righteous, white-hat wearing jerks that constitute American
politics.  So I am quite surprised to find folks engaged in pretty much every
different kind of analysis of the current situation EXCEPT the attempt to
understand how Keyes sees or will see it, and to find them announcing what
they will be doing (starting new parties, supporting this or that other man
for president, etc.) without much suggestion that the best way to figure out
what to do is to watch the guy we think knows how to lead.

The habit of judging things entirely for ourselves, man by man, is deeply
engrained in the American character.  It is mostly a matter of stupid pride,
as near as I can tell, combined with a healthy dollop of scepticism about the
quality of leadership that usually asks us to trust it.  It just doesn't
occur to us very often that the best way to learn what we think about a
particular situation is to ask someone else what we think.  But when we know
a man who agrees with us on all the most important principles, and who
reasons from those principles and applies them to concrete circumstances
BETTER than we do, why, then if we really want to know "what we think" about
something, we'll just try to find out what that wise man thinks, and WHY.  It
is NOBLE and WISE to follow such a noble and wise man in this way.  
If Alan Keyes urges support for Bob Dole, I think it would be plain silly for
people on this list to start warning him about the dangers of compromise, and
of how weakly and ineffectively Bob Dole is pro-life.  We should rather
understand that, should Keyes support Dole, as I believe he will, it will be
because in his WISE judgment, such support is the best measure we can take
NOW to advance the cause of our principles.  To disagree with him, without
the most careful consideration of his reasons for this position, is silly,
and shows that we haven't even begun to understand the real claim he has to
be our leader:  that he is wise in navigating, in LIGHT of principle, the
complicated and confusing circumstances of politics.

Keyes is responsible for being wise and leading.  Our job is to try to
understand him and his positions and arguments as well as we can, and then to
help him in carrying out the course of action which is indicated.  

The following text is the transcript of the last question and answer at
Keyes' appearance at the GOPAC convention in Washington just over a year ago.
 It shows, as does almost every text of Keyes speaking, that if we want to
know what to do in politics now, our first and most urgent effort should be
to find out what Alan Keyes thinks . . . and WHY!!!!!!!!

David Q.

Question: As a pro-life Republican who shares the core of your message, I
have this question. I assume that Lincoln is one of your models of
leadership. If we go over to the Lincoln Memorial and read the Second
Inaugural Address inscribed on its walls, he says that they knew that somehow
slavery was the cause of that war. But one side, the South, would make war
rather than let go that institution, while the other side, the North, sought
nothing more than to prohibit the territorial enlargement of it. The Fugitive
Slave Act was what really got passions going, wasn't it? So - getting back to
what Arianna Huffington said a minute ago - Lincoln was a prudential
political leader facing prudential constraints within what is doable, right?
And so he sought to do nothing more initially than stop the enlargement of
slavery to the new territories coming into the Union. Couldn't we start with
where we agree? Let's educate Americans on the fact that Roe vs. Wade permits
third trimester abortions, and start restricting gender selection abortions,
which is about a ninety percent issue, and start restricting the third
trimester abortions, which are opposed by a huge majority of Americans, and
begin to contain that evil with measures that we really could enact into law.
Wouldn't that be the best way to approach it, step by step, starting with big
majority  issues?    

Keyes: I understand. You've missed the point of Lincoln's statesmanship. You
see, because unlike the folks -- some of the folks -- in this room, and
apparently in the leadership of the party, when the issue was put on the
table, Lincoln didn't go hide in the back room.  He stood up, and he argued
the issue from principle. He made it very clear, in his arguments, what the
argument was. He made it very clear what the difference was between the right
and wrong of it. He didn't run away from that. He stated it; he debated it
openly. That is the first prerequisite. Because I agree with you: you know
what real  statesmanship consists in? It does not consist in compromising the
facts at the expense of your principles. No. It consists in being clear about
your principles, and then if necessary, compromising with the facts. What we
are doing as a party right now is we are being  tempted to compromise this
issue in principle. We are being tempted to go down a road that says "OK,
let's accept Roe vs. Wade, its premises and so forth, and see whether we
can't operate within that to reduce this evil, and so forth." That's not a
Lincolnian position. The Lincoln position is to make it very clear what the
right and wrong of  it is. And when you have made that very clear and
re-established the basic principle on which the country must approach the
issue, then you can talk about those areas where some of the evil may be
tolerated in order that the rest of the good that we certainly know this
society represents can be preserved. But you don't allow the wellspring of
your freedom to be poisoned, because if you do the Republic dies.  And so I
only disagree on that one point. And what I am demanding, right now, and what
I suppose I am acting out, is not the need to have, in the next fifty
seconds, a strict solution to this issue. What we need to do, is we need to
have a frank and honest and open -- a real -- debate, that lays the issues of
principle before the American people.  And you know why? I actually think
that one of the problems with this whole thing is that we have folks,
including our leading politicians and all, who think of this issue as a
terrible problem, and wish that it would go away. And that's sad.  It's sad
because the great issues of principle, and the challenges that arise from
them, are also the great moments of education, when this country can make
more profound its understanding of what we are supposed to be. It is a great
moment for education - for the ennobling and uplifting of this people, so
they can understand once again how what we are, and what we are about,
transcends the dollars and cents,  the grubby materialism that is always on
offer, and really reaches up to the highest goals, the highest principles,
the best aspirations of  humanity. Why do we run from such issues? They may
be tough and they may be difficult. But in them also lie the greatest
inspirations, the greatest motivations, the greatest sense of challenge for a
great people. We are such a great people. And we deserve a leadership that
does not shrink from the moments of opportunity for our greatness, but grasps
them, so we can understand our future with the wisdom necessary to make it
real.  Thank you very much.

I found this very interesting, but what I really appreciated was the
statements about how foolish it is to believe in a leader, and then to
second-guess everything he says and never actually follow his leadership.

Now I don't exactly feel that about Keyes as a leader, though from what I've
seen he's about the best that the American political system has had to offer
for a long time.

But it really spoke to me about how we follow Jesus.  Jesus is the best
possible leader that we could imagine - He *IS* God, after all.  Yet so often
we don't and won't follow His leadership.  What He says on some subjects we
can't make sense of, so instead of following what He says, we ignore it or
rationalize it away or 'interpret' it differently so that we can do what
makes sense to us.

And you're right, that is incredibly foolish.

Thanks

Paul

Subject: Alan Keyes' speech to Missouri State Convention
   From: [email protected]

The following is my best effort at transcribing Alan Keyes' address to 
the Missouri State Republican Convention in Springfield, Missouri, on May 
18, 1996.  I may have missed a word here and there, but the essence of 
his message should be clear.

[Introduction by Woody Cozad, State Republican Party Chairman]

Thank you very much.  You know, I've been watching the developments in our 
politics in the last few months, and America is getting to be a very 
confusing country in some ways.  Have you noticed that?  I have.  It 
started out for me when Bill Clinton went up to New Hampshire and started 
what has become a trend for him.  It got so bad at one point that I 
understand there was a fellow there who wanted to bring a case in court 
against Bill Clinton because he said he was stealing the Republican 
message [laughter].  Now, that is a situation that since then has gotten 
much worse, but the defense against that charge is still the same and 
it's one that I think we're going to have to remind the American people 
of; because when you're running against somebody who has no respect for 
the truth, now he doesn't care what he has to say to get where he is; so 
if he has to sound like a Republican, or conservative, whatever, he'll do 
it!

Now this is a guy who hasn't been able to find a bad word to say until 
now, for instance, against the xxx xxxxxx agenda.  The other day I was 
reading that he has now come out against the idea that there should be 
xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx.  How many people believe that Bill Clinton has 
changed his stand on this?  [laughter]  And that's why we have to 
remember the defense that was used against this charge that he's stealing 
the Republican message; it's very simple, he's not stealing our message 
at all, he's just borrowing it [laughter and applause].  And he's going 
to give it back right after the election in November! [continuing applause]

I think, all other distractions aside, we've got to remember who and what 
we are and that's what I would like to talk about here because I'm put in 
mind of that Dickens novel, the one that begins, "It was the best of 
times, it was the worst of times..." and I believe that the Republican 
party is in that kind of a position right now.  On the one hand we have 
come from a tremendous victory in 1994 that portends the possibility of, 
I believe, an even permanent Republican majority in this country that can 
fundamentally help to shape the foundations that will carry us forward to 
the twenty-first century; a moment of tremendous opportunoty not only for 
this party but also for this country because of our leadership [applause].

But you know we also are at a point, I believe, that if we follow the 
wrong roads and the wrong instincts we could in a short space of time end 
up being that party that is remembered for opportunity lost and the 
future that never was, and don't fool yourself.  We are betwixt and 
between that great decision-making point.  Just as quickly as that 
opportunity has arisen to to offer the American people leadership that 
will shape the future for a generation, so that opportunity can be *lost* 
if we *forget* what got us here in the first place [applause].

I know that there are some folks out there who will say that the way you 
win elections is by looking at the people who have won and imitating 
them.  And I have to tell you that this doesn't bode real well for us 
right now because the last presidential election was won by Bill Clinton 
and that would argue for the imitation of Clinton as the best way to win 
the election in 1996, and I think there are some Republicans who think 
that Bill Clinton ran on the slogan, "It's the economy, stupid."  And 
there seem to be some Republicans set on getting us fighting one another 
over this issue or that, who believe that we can go before the American 
people and speak about the money issues and the fiscal issues and the 
budget issues and forget other great challenges that are before us, and 
that's going to be the road to victory.

I think that there is nothing more false that this solution [applause] and 
I have said throughout my little campaign effort and I will say it again, 
we face a lot of problems in this country, we face problems with crime in 
the street and we face problems with education, we face problems in the 
home and in the schools, we face budget problems, we face the problem of 
an expanding and domineering federal government bureaucracy, we face all 
of these problems but at the heart of each and every one of them is the 
same problem.  As a people we are in the midst of a test.  It is not a 
test of whether we have the money to survive and whether we have the 
budget to survive, it's a test of whether we have the *character* to 
survive, as a people [standing ovation].

And I don't know about you, I look at Mr. Clinton and I'll tell you, if 
that's the test case we're going to go by, then we've already lost the 
game [amens].  And I think, if the American people go to the voting booth 
in the fall asking themselves which person and which party represents the 
character they want for this country and for their children in the 
future, Bill Clinton won't stand a chance and that's the issue we have to 
put before them [applause].

Those are nice words, interesting words, but you see, they mean that we 
face some tough decisions.  But I've got to tell you though that the 
impression that I've gotten in my visit to Missouri and the impression 
that I have as I stand before you today, contrary to the one that's being 
promoted out there in the press about this convention, is that you know 
there are some people who have actually wanted to create the impression 
that this is a state convention that is fatefully divided against itself 
and that you have one group over here and they're standing for this and 
one group over here and they're standing for that, you've got people 
that are just plotting the day when they're going to go without doors 
and run at something else or do something else.  

I want to make one thing very clear to everybody because I have noticed 
that on various sides of the equation I have found some name reminiscent of 
when, I can't recollect [laughter, apparently a refernce to himself].  
Now I see a Buchanan name over here and a Dole name over here and 
between on both sides I see the same name [laughter - there was a 
Buchanan-Keyes coalition and a Dole-Keyes coalition competing for 
delegates].  Some people may take that as a sign of a divided heart; I 
don't.  You know what it's a sign of?  It's a sign that there are 
*names* and *principles* and *ideas* that represent that common ground 
and that... [drowned out by standing ovation].

I'd like to tell everybody - there are reporters here and others and 
they can try as they might, one conclusion I've come to about the 
Missouri Republican Party - and there may be some people wanting to 
dispute it, not dispute it - it's just my personal conviction, and I 
think it's my conviction too about where the Republican Party is going 
to stand at the end of the day when the smoke clears and the voices die 
down and all the divisiveness is put aside, we are a party that is 
going to stand for those principles on which this nation was founded, 
and that means we are pro-people, pro-life, and *pro-* the progress 
and rights of the American people, and nobody's going to back us off 
that platform [extended applause].

I say it too, though, as a word of wisdom to the press and also, I'll be 
frank with you, a word of warning to the people who I think are playing 
some dangerous games in the Republican leadership.  I would be remiss and 
dishonest if I didn't say, standing on this platform, what I have said to 
every person I can speak to in private, every chance I get.  I belive 
that if the Republican Convention in this summer removes the pro-life 
plank, dilutes the pro-life plank, backs the party off its commitment to 
the defense *at the Constitutional level* of the life of the unborn that 
this party will go down to defeat and it will *deserve* to be defeated 
[standing ovation].

You know, I notice that there are a lot of Democrats out there who have 
been giving Mr. Dole advice [laughter].  I say Chris Dodd the other day 
on TV; he was giving Dole advice, and his advice to Bob Dole was that 
when he gets the nomination he should go with, oh, I don't know, Colin 
Powell or one of these people, and I was sitting there looking at that 
and thinking to myself, yes, you know, it's going to be good Democrat  
advice to the Republican nominee to choose a pro-abortion running mate
because that's exactly what the Democrats want him to do [laughter].

And I don't say, and some people say Alan is saying, that because he is 
pro-life, he's a one-issue candidate, he wants his party to be dedicated to 
one thing but that's not true, it's not true at all - it never has been 
and never will be.  Now the people who are in this room who profess the 
pro-life point of view, and contrary to what some people want to 
believe and I know it's hard for some of you to hear this, but there are 
people in this room behind Keyes buttons and you know they're pro-life, 
and there are people in this room behind Pat buttons and you know they're 
pro-life, and there are people in this room behind Dole buttons and you 
know that they're pro-life because we're *all* going to stand together to 
defend the innocent life of our children [applause].

For all those people and all those folks who think that's somehow an 
obsession with one issue, it's not.  And we're looking at the great 
panorama of American life, we're looking at the crime on the streets and 
the fear in the schools and we know that it comes from the same source, 
the number one problem we face is the breakdown of the marriage-based 
family and the number one cause of that breakdown is the assault on the good 
heart for love, responsibility, and decency and that is going on in this 
country today, and the number one issue representing that assault which 
hardens the American heart, the heart of mothers against their children 
and fathers against their responsibility, is the issue of abortion.  That 
is not one issue, it is *every* issue that catches[?] the character of its 
people [extended standing ovation].

But there is one other thing I think we have to keep clearly in mind.  It 
was illustrated to me by something that happened to me, I was just in 
Oregon and if you've watched my speeches over time you know I'm not much 
given to anecdotes in my speeches, I usually avoid them, I'm not quite sure 
why, but I can't help it, do you mind if I share a story with you?  
Because it's one that I'll carry with me for the rest of my life and I 
think it also bears for us a lesson about the significance of what I'm 
saying.  And I was in Oregon campaigning for a friend who's out there 
running, strong pro-life candidate and all that, and I thought that was 
the reason I was there.  The first night I was there I had a call from my 
scheduler, telling me that somebody had contacted us from the Make A Wish 
Foundation; it appeared there was a teenage boy, a boy named Chris, 17, I 
think, and he suffered all his life from multiple schlerosis, hadn't had 
the use of his body from the neck down but he has developed all kinds of 
skills; he can communicate and write and is going to school and was one of 
the first people from that county to go to the Republican delegation 
meeting; he was also, by the way, a good staunch conservative Republican 
[laughter].  And he asked, and I was called in by somebody who had 
watched my campaign and thought it would be a good thing, and he was 
through a terribly difficult operation that had left him in a depressed  
state of mind and it was his wish that he should meet Alan Keyes.  Now 
I've got to tell you that already that is a moment in in life that 
doesn't come along very often and that I shall never forget.  And I 
prepared for this with the thought that it might be a kind of nice event 
but tinged with a little sadness, you know, and I was utterly wrong, 
because I went into this household and I found a spirit there, a spirit 
of love and a spirit of joy, and a spirit of dedication and a spirit 
of faith in God's power and His love of life that I shall carry with me 
for all my life.  And what it taught me was the lesson that I think 
we're forgetting more and more with some of these issues.  All these 
people telling us that we can be for abortion and euthanasia and suicide...

...because there are times in life when it's just not worth living, and there 
are kinds of deformities that just aren't worth tolerating, and there are 
all kinds of people who oughtn't to be here and therefore we have the 
right to make that choice, but for all that argument about rights I have 
another question:  Do we have the *wisdom* to make it?  Do we have [the 
wisdom] to really plumb the depths to understand life's mystery to the 
extent that we know what constitutes the quality of life?  Oh, I am sure 
that there are those who believe that that young boy should have been cut 
off in the womb somewhere and that the joy I felt in that room radiating 
from him and that the triumph of his spirit over the adversity of his body 
should never have been witnessed by me, by his neighbors, by his family.  
But it's a lie.  That is the true meaning of human life and that meaning 
has *not* been fully explored and we have no right to cut it off 
[applause].                  
     
I believe if we are going to stand up and be honest about this there are 
some people who will say, well, this is a divisive issue and it's 
terrible and it's going to tear the party apart.  Two things are true: 
first of all if we stand firmly where we belong on these great issues of 
justice and principle, all we're doing is what our founders did in the 
beginning [applause], they started the nation in the belief, they said it 
clearly, "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator..."  
That was a statement of truth, they said; it was also a statement of 
faith.  That is the faith on which the nation was founded, the faith of 
our founders, and the Republican Party came along during the course of the 
Civil War and when people thought it was too difficult and too dangerous 
and too divisive and slavery was an issue, we shouldn't tackle it, 
and leave it out of politics, and that's what the Whigs said and that's 
what the Democrats said, but that's *not* what Lincoln said, he said we 
stand for principle, we did, and we made it a triumph [applause].

That time has defined for us a moral identity, the moral identity of 
America, an identity committed to the recognition and respect of 
God-given rights, an identity that understands that we human beings are 
not the be-all and end-all but that we gained our freedom to stand on our 
feet because we are not too proud to go on our knees before the God who 
endows us with our liberty [applause].

That sense of liberty, that sense of responsibility that must go 
hand-in-hand with freedom is the bedrock part of the American creed, and 
when we stand for that creed we are not calling this nation to division 
and conflict and struggle and war, we are calling it back to those common 
principles which are its unifying power.  We are bringing Americans of 
every race and creed and color and background back to that point where 
they will understand that we do not stand together as Americans because 
we are of one color and one kind and one nation and one creed, we stand 
together because we are one heart for freedom and for justice and we will 
not let that heart be destroyed [applause].

I believe that if we carry that healing message into the fall campaign, 
we're going to be successful.  But you've got to understand what I've 
just said, because we have a strong case to make on economic grounds; 
I've spent a lot of time myself making it over the years, [as] president of 
Citizens Against Government Waste, I'm telling people we need lower 
taxes, we need to cut back the size and power of government.  But you 
know, being against government is not an end in itself.  I do not stand 
here as a conservative because I'm against government.  I stand against 
the expansion of government power and government domination and 
government control because it destroys the family and destroys the sense 
of responsibility without which our freedoms cannot survive.  Those are 
the positive notes that we raise [applause].

Bill Clinton knows the truth of this.  That's why he's been going out 
there trying to pretend he's some big champion of the family.  That's 
why, by the way, he's doing his level best to take credit for everything 
the Republican Congress is doing.  But I think that all we're going to 
have to do is, Jeanne Kirkpatrick used to have a saying she impressed 
upon us when we were serving at the United Nations and I think it would 
be good for us during this election.  And it was very simple, "If they're 
going to lie about us, we'll just tell the truth about them." 
[Applause]  And I am sure the truth is going to defeat Bill Clinton, but 
we're going to have to have as a party and as a people the courage to 
stand for that truth.

We're going to have to have the wisdom - there may be some people here who 
who like to hear this, don't like to hear this - some lady as I was 
coming in was chiding me because according to her I was doing something 
that might bespeak support for Bob Dole.  Now I've got to disclaim any 
such action at the moment.  There are some people here who have been 
acting and not acting and I disclaim it not because I dislike it or like 
it but because the Keyes campaign was put together by a lot of 
independent-minded people.  I don't dictate what they do, they just came 
along because they thought I was saying some things that were in their 
heart [applause].  They are right now again conscientiously following 
their heart to try to do what is best for the party and for America and 
in that goal I certainly support them, but I dictate nothing.  But when 
chided as to the fact if I might or might not do something to support 
Bob Dole, I'll tell you something.  If I go to the Republican Covention 
in August and that convention stands foursquare when I think it ought to 
stand on the principles of the Republican Party, strong for life, strong 
against the domineering power of big government and the expansion of 
government power, strong in favor of returning power and 
decision-making in the economics and in education and in every area of 
our life back to the grassroots people of this country, if that party 
stands where we stood when Ronald Reagan won and when George Bush won, 
then *I* will stand with that party and we will win again in November 
[standing ovation].

And there are people who say that it's very likely that the name on the 
Republican ballot is going to be Bob Dole.  If the name on the ballot is 
Bob Dole and the principles in the heart are those principles, then we 
can carry them before the American people with pride and with the 
certainty that because we stand for what is right they we reward us with 
the victory.  Carry that in your heart.  Because I believe one thing is 
true - I think we can see enough in America of all the division and 
distortion, the Democrats are good at that, they want to divide us, men 
from women and race from race, creed from creed, and workers from 
management, that's all that they want to do.  They want to divide us up 
into all our little parts and keep us fighting one another.  You know 
what the Republican Party is?  We are the voice that calls America home, 
that calls America home to its principles, to its common heart, to its 
place before the nations of the world as one nation under God, standing 
for that better destiny, which can show not only our children and their 
children, but indeed all the people of the world, how it is that justice 
and freedom can walk hand-in-hand for a future that God will bless and 
of which we can be proud.  God bless you all [tumultuous applause and 
ovation].

Subject: ALAN KEYES SPEECH AT TEXAS STATE CONVENTION
   From: [email protected]

(Introduction by Kay Bailey Hutchison.  Some of the introduction was cut off
the tape)

.....He went to High school right here in San Antonio.  He served President
Reagan as Assistant Secretary of State and as Ambassador to the UN Economic
and Social Council. 

Alan has defended our party and the principles that bind us together on
national television programs and with his own radio show, "The Alan Keyes
Show -- America's Wake Up Call."

He has worked to restore our nation to a firm financial footing as president
of Citizen's Against Government Waste.  He initiated National Taxpayer
Action Day.

What I really remember about Alan when he ran for President, he brought the
house down time after time and he did it by staying on the issues that he
believes in and articulating his principles. And when he was denied a place
on a television debate, every other Republican candidate for President said
"Alan Keyes should be right here." We stood with him.

And most important of all, Alan is leading a charge for the return of
morality in America.  All of us remember his thrilling speech to the
national convention in 1992. Alan is here with us now, and I also want to
tell you if you don't get enough today, he is going to speak at 7 o'clock in
front of the Alamo, also.  Please give a great Texas welcome to a San
Antonio resident... a great American... Alan Keyes.

(long ovation)

thank you..............

I gotta tell you ... I must say ..I guess I shouldn't be surprised but it
sounds like this convention is in the hands of the PEOPLE.  (applause)  And
I'm not surprised because that's exactly where we mean for this COUNTRY to
be when the November election is over ... back in the hands of its people.
(applause)

And we know what that is going to require.  It's going to require several
things: First of all it's going to require that we reclaim the White House
from Bill Clinton. But I'm not going to dwell on that for too long, because
in spite of all the media hype, and they have been hyping it for some time
now, trying to convince us that  Bill Clinton is somehow out there living
and breathing.  I frankly don't think he is any more politically alive today
than he was in 1994 when even his own party people didn't want to have
anything to do with him.  The media can hype it all they like. The American
people in their majority did not elect Bill Clinton in 1992  and they will
not re-elect him in 1996.(applause)

And I don't know... I don't know what some folks are relying on to achieve
that result.  I, myself, can say what I have said for months.  And what I
believe to be true.  I don't think we are going to defeat Bill Clinton
because of his economic policies.  I don't think we are going to defeat him
because of his foreign policies.  I'll tell you, he deserves to be defeated
on both counts. But I believe that most Americans, when they see the
policies that he has pursued ..catering to those that  wish to destroy
America's values and destroy America's families, know that we can't send
back to the White House the most anti-moral, anti-family president in the
history of this country.(applause)

I never thought when I was coming of age right here in San  Antonio... I can
remember, it was still common political parlance to say that there were
three things that as a political person, you could always speak about
without controversy: mom, the flag, and apple pie. Now I don't know about
the other two, but we have for the first time in American history, an
administration that has actually denigrated motherhood;   that sent a
delegation to the women's conference that actually stood with those who
questioned whether motherhood is part of a woman's vocation. Well I'll tell you 
something, if he doesn't realize that it is, the presidency should be no
part of his vocation.  Get him out of office. (applause)

Now I know all of this unanimity is probably surprising the folks from the
media who are here. Now I don't want to give you the impression that they
are listening to any part of this speech because I know ... (applause)
wait...wait....
My experience during the campaign suggests that when I walk onto the podium,
they walk out of the room. But that is neither here nor there.  It 's
possible, though, that they heard some rumors that there were going to be
Republicans in here drawing each others blood and beating each other up and
that's the one thing you can be sure of... They'll ignore us when we talk
about the right approaches to welfare that reduce dependency and actually
restore the strength of family life.... they don't want to hear about it!

They don't want to hear about it when we talk about lowering taxes, and
lowering regulation to return the strength of this economy to the hands and
creativity of its people.  They don't want to hear about it.

But if they, for once, get the word that we're going to be in here drawing
blood and spilling Republican blood and destroying Republican principles...
they'll be right there to watch.  Well I've got news for them... I don't
know where they have gotten the idea that this party is divided on the key
issues that face us.  I don't know where they get it.  I know, there are
those that have tried to go around the country telling me, telling others
that the Republican party is deeply divided on the great issues of principle
including the issue that some people say we shouldn't mention that I will
mention everywhere all the time no matter what... the great and important
and key issue of the abortion tragedy.  (applause)

Well I got news for them. I went all over this country.. I went all over all
over this country .... I went to Republican gatherings, large and small, to
state conventions, to meetings, to caucuses, to Presidency III...
everywhere.  And I looked out over crowds like this. And I know that some of
those people in those crowds weren't wearing Keyes buttons, I understand
that...  But I also know this; regardless of what buttons they were wearing;
regardless of whether they said Dole, or Keyes, or Buchanan, or Alexander...
when I stood up  to defend the truth that this party must not depart from
the principles on which it was founded,  that we must stand for justice
today as we stood for justice in the 19th century. That  we must demand
respect for the rights of ALL human beings regardless of their color, their
race, their creed or their position in the womb...  EVERY Republican stood
on their feet because THAT is the Republican creed. THAT is the American
way. (ovation)

This party... I believe... I believe... that contrary to that media belief..
I won't even call it a belief, it's actually their hope, you know.  I think
there are a lot of Republicans that have the common sense to understand the
truth.

We stand before each other and the American people four square for returning
the power of our people to the hands of our people.  Cut back the size of
Washington government; Reclaim control over our resources; Reduce the tax
burden on the American people; Reduce the regulatory burden to return
control to the people who ought to, in the small and medium and large
business enterprises of this country, control its economic future. We know
we stand for that.

But we also know that you cannot return power to the people unless you
respect the strength of character needed for them to use that power rightly.

There is no contradiction ... there is no contradiction whatsoever between
the economic agenda, the fiscal agenda, and the moral and social agenda of
the republican party.

Strong character and self government go hand in hand.  They are two sides of
the same coin.  They are two parts of the same heart. And they are both of
them united in the Republican creed.

And that's why I believe, that contrary to what some of the folks in the
media believe, we're not only going to go forward in November and exemplify
the unity of the Republican party. We are going to stand in stark contrast
to the Democrats who for decades now have represented the politics of
division setting race against race, and gender against gender, and group
against group. We do not believe that this can be a house divided.

And we will call upon ... we will call upon the American people to remember
what Lincoln spoke of when he addressed a July 4th crowd in 1858, I think it
was. And he pointed to the fact that on July 4th celebrations we come
together and in those days they commemorated the great work of the American
Revolution. They looked back to the great deeds of the patriots and he asked
the question.  He said, well, how can it be that those people who have just
come here and have no ancestors who fought in the revolution... how can it
be that they will feel part of this great celebration?

And then he said, well, they will not just look back at the deeds of that
revolution, they will go back and they will read the great principles for
the sake of which it is fought and he was alluding to that great Declaration
which says that all men are created equal and endowed not by constitutions
or declarations or congresses or presidents or supreme courts but by the
power of Almighty God with their unalienable rights. (applause) And he said
... they shall read... they shall read that document... they shall read that
document and they will know that they are blood of our blood. 

And I say to you here and now that it is those great principles that take us
all, the most diverse people ever assembled on the face of the earth of
every race and every creed and every color, and every kind, and unite us
into one great nation under God. For the blood that runs in our veins is not
just the rich warm physical blood it is the blood of moral PRINCIPLE, the
blood of moral TRUTH and we will not surrender it. (applause)

And in that spirit... And in that spirit, I at least know that I stand
before you right now a committed Republican. I know that there are some
people who speculate about this and that and the other thing and talk about
leaving this party. I am not going to leave this party.  I'm going fight to
make sure this party STANDS with its principles and I will stand with you in
that battle. (applause)

And when we go... and when we go to our convention... when we go to our
convention in August, we are going to show the media and we are going to
show the American people just what unity means. And we're not going to do it
just as a party for partisan reasons so we can go and win office, we are
going to do it on the right grounds, I believe.  Because I gotta tell
you.... I am not a Republican for the sake of some party label. I am not a
Republican for the sake of some power and profit. I am a Republican because
throughout my lifetime the Republican party has stood strong for American
values and American decency and American principles when it was popular and
when it was not. That is the heritage on which we were founded.  It is the
heritage with which we shall triumph in the fall. (applause)

And we shall call this people...  we shall call this people, this great
American people, to a unity more important than party unity.  A unity that
transcends even our character as a great American people. Well you know we
have stood since this country began for a hope that is not just an American
hope, it is not a black hope, or a white hope, or an Italian hope, or a
Polish hope, or a Jewish hope, or a Muslim hope. We stand for that hope
which is the hope of all mankind.  The hope that we can realize what was the
true GIFT of our Creator: life and dignity. Hearts disciplined with respect
for his law living in freedom because we have the character to respect his 
truth.

I know there are those who would like to banish that recognition from our
politics.  They accuse people like me of bringing religion into politics and
so forth and so on. I'm sorry.  I haven't brought religion into politics I
came into American public life and I found the name of God written large on
our founding documents... the foundation stones of this nations life.
(ovation)
And I know that ... and I know in my heart... I know in my heart ... I know
in my heart that for all that  they say, I know that we need to address the
great problems of the day. What we do with the. money and the budgets and so
forth and so on.   But you and I both know the truth; that our streets are
filled with violence and our schools live now under the shadow of fear. It
is because our families are failing and our families are failing because our
moral heart is being corrupted away from those values of selflessness and
respect, for responsibility and obligation, that are
indeed the heart of family life. But we can call this nation back to a
future of strong families and real self-government if we are willing, with
courage, to remind the American people that this republic and its people
shall stand in freedom as long as we fear not to go down on our knees before
Almighty God and in respect of His authority and truth. (applause)

And with that on our hearts...and with that on our hearts, I believe we
shall speak to and unite the great and decent heart of the American people
speaking from the heart of American principle to the heart of Americans
everywhere that message which as Americans we share.  That we move forward
into the 21st century rededicating ourselves to those propositions of
justice and equality for all... ALL; regardless of color and race...ALL.
Born and unborn... ALL HUMAN BEINGS. That we shall stand under that banner
reclaiming the power that is ours. To self-government that is ours.  And the
destiny that we shall hold up as an example for all the earth.

Thank you very much.

(long ovation)

Dave Bortel
A Rogue Elephant from Texas!

    Chuck Hays, CIA contract operative, was supposed to be on the ValuJet
    that crashed in May.  He was the one who broke the news that Vince
    Foster had received $2.73M from Switzerland just before his death.  It
    was put into a U.S. slush fund bank account that he controlled, but it
    was designated as a "U.S. Treasury Escrow Account."  After his death,
    the number of the account was found in his wallet.  Hays was a key
    source to Jim Norman, former senior editor of "Forbes," who wrote
    disclosures in "Media Bypass."
    
    Hay's name was on the ValuJet manifest, but he was unable to catch the
    flight.  
    
    In light of the swirling rumors about Ron Brown's death, the Arkansas
    Mafia, and several other deaths that seem to follow Bill Clinton and
    his "friends" one really has to wonder if this is all a coincidence. 
    The "Clinton Chronicles" video has the death toll at 56, going back to
    his governor days.  
    
    Maybe his re-election does signal that God is about to unfold his
    prophetic calendar.  Looking back in history, the church has always
    been healthiest when persecuted.  It may be sooner than we think.
    
    Mike

    Our pastor spoke yesterday on some of the prerequisites to revival
    using 2 Kings 22 as the text.  He said that if you examine all the
    great revivals in scripture and church history, they all share some
    basic prerequisites that the church today needs to be aware of if they
    hope that revival will come to us.
    
    The first three are:
    
    1. Personal revival - it's been said that if you truly want revival, go
    home, kneel on the floor, draw a circle around yourself, and pray that
    God will bring revival by starting with the one inside the circle.  It
    was also noted that many of the church's great revivals have been
    started by young people (i.e., teenagers).  Josiah is no exception in
    the text.
    
    2. Restoring & healing relationships within God's house.  There's too
    much strife in the church today, if you have wrong someone, or someone
    has wronged you, apologies need to be made.  
    
    3. Rediscover the joy of God's Word.
    
    more later as I hear it,
    Mike

    RE: 202
    
    I'm surprised that no one mentioned the plane that crashed into a
    mountain (or hill?) when Clinton was on his way to his big birthday
    party after he just finished his recent vacation.  The plane was
    returning from that vacation and in it were the military personnel 
    and one(?) secret service person who were all watching Clinton 
    during that vacation.  

 ..and the helicopter that crashed/burned in Orlando Florida last week.


 If nothing else, Mr. Clinton's administration seems to have bad luck
 with flying machines.




Jim

| <<< Note 209.205 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day" >>>

| If nothing else, Mr. Clinton's administration seems to have bad luck
| with flying machines.

	Jim, imagine what would happen if they got their hands on a time
machine? :-)

    I saw a report on network new recently (not sure which network) talking
    about the bad luck of the White House fleet under Clinton.  the Wyoming
    crash back a few replies was mentioned.
    
    Mike