Time: Sat Jul 26 08:00:00 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA15909;
	Sat, 26 Jul 1997 07:25:58 -0700 (MST)
	by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA11939;
	Sat, 26 Jul 1997 07:24:16 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 07:23:43 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Alan Keyes, on Guarding the Taxpayers' Interest

>KEYES 2000!!!!!!!!
>Please distribute this transcript!
>The Alan Keyes Show
>July 21, 1997
>Hour 1: Segment 4
>Subject: Republican Abandoning the Taxpayers
>Surprise, surprise!  Guess who isn't the least bit
>swayed by any of the information that's coming out
>in these hearings, about what the Chinese were up
>to, and so forth and so on.  Betcha can't guess.
>Give you three guesses.  Who isn't the least bit
>influenced by it?
>Well, it's the Clinton Administration, of course!
>Taking the position that it all amounts to
>nothing, should have no effect on our policy
>toward China.  I have a feeling they're going to
>take this approach no matter what is brought out
>by these hearings.  Because their commitment --
>along, sadly, with the commitment of some folks
>who even sit on the Republican side -- is to
>ignore whatever the Chinese may say or do  -- the
>Chinese communist government, that is -- ignore
>whatever that Chinese communist government says or
>does, because if you take any steps to react to
>their human rights abuses or anything else, you'll
>be interfering with our ability to pursue the huge
>profits that some people see in our trade with
>China.  Now, these huge profits may not be
>materializing for Americans at large.   In fact,
>they may be finding that competition with slave
>labor in China is hurting their economic
>prospects, as it helps to kill jobs in the United
>States and so forth.
>But who is paying any attention to the interests
>of the working, taxpaying people of this country?
>This is one of the things that has been much on my
>mind, in the course of the last several weeks, as
>a long term question and challenge for our
>politics.  As I look at the way things are shaping
>up, you can kind of see who represents the
>interests of the big government bureaucrats, and
>all of the whole network of consultants and
>producers, who depend on government largesse.
>Clearly, that party of government is quite
>squarely represented by the Democrats, and by,
>particularly, of course, the liberal Democrats,
>who are the tail that wag the dog of the
>Democratic Party.
>And it used to be the case that when I surveyed
>the American scene I could say to myself:  "And
>who represents the hardworking, taxpaying people
>of the United States?"  And that was, of course,
>the Republicans.  They were the ones who were
>supposed to do that.  But now admittedly, the
>media and all these people, they portrayed the
>Republicans as only interested in the corporate
>interest, and so forth and so on.  But until
>recently, I would have said that that was not the
>case.  More and more, though, as one judges by the
>way that Republican leaders are behaving IN power,
>as opposed to OUT of it -- now that they have
>control of the Congress, as opposed to what they
>did and said as they were pursuing that control --
>in power, they have in fact been acting in a way
>that fulfills the caricature of Republicanism that
>has been put out there, over the years, by the
>media.   It's almost as if the leadership revels
>in being a caricature of itself, in serving the
>big-money corporate interest as opposed to the
>populist interest of the hardworking, taxpaying
>population of the country.
>With that abandonment, on the part of the
>Republican leadership, of the taxpaying people,
>you are left with a question:  "Who is going to
>speak for them?  Who is going to speak for you?"
>In terms, particularly, of the national counsels
>of this country, I think that is a serious void
>that is being left now, by a Republican leadership
>that does not understand the secret of its own
>political success.  And that's not a void, I
>think, that is going to go unfilled forever.
>Obviously, some folks already have the idea,
>because that is presumably where the title of one
>of the parties that's offering itself as an
>alternative out there comes from:  The Taxpayers
>Party.  Because they are interested in standing up
>and speaking for the working people of this
>country, who pay the bulk of the taxes that
>support the federal establishment.  And they are
>interested in somehow trying to serve the interest
>of those working people, both in maintaining a
>strong and expansive, healthy economy, that can
>provide jobs for ordinary working folks in the
>country, and in terms of cutting back the size and
>power and tax bite of the government, so that
>folks who are out working hard will be able to
>keep control of more of their own resources.
>That, to me, is the absolutely quintessential and
>fundamental agenda of the future.  Combine that
>with what needs to be the top priority given to
>restoring the country's moral health and the
>strength of its basic moral institutions like the
>family, and you have the agenda that serves the
>best interest of America in the years ahead; it's
>not very hard to come up with.  And yet it seems
>very hard, for the people who in the past
>professed to be committed to that agenda, to stick
>with it.
>And I know I came in for criticism last week,
>because I refused to shut up about this.  I am
>talking about it continually, and I will talk
>about it continually, because I think it's the
>major political crisis that we are faced with
>right now as a people.  It goes hand in hand with
>the larger moral crisis that this country
>confronts in terms of its basic institutions.  And
>the true, decent, self-government oriented heart
>of the American people -- that heart is not being
>spoken for in the national councils right now,
>because of the abandonment by the Republican
>leadership of what ought to be their true
>positions.  And one needs to pound away at that,
>every single moment of every single day, till they
>come back to their senses.  And I think that's one
>of the roles that we have to play here in talk
>radio, in terms of speaking about the things that
>a lot of folks would rather we shut up about.

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail